Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security Situation

Damien Moore: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

James Brokenshire: The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism continues to be severe within Northern Ireland, meaning an attack is highly likely. This Government will always give the fullest possible support to the brave men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5. We remain fully committed to keeping people safe and secure, and to ensuring that terrorism never succeeds.

Damien Moore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although much of our time and focus are spent on international terrorism threats, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the very real and continuing threat from dissidents in Northern Ireland? In that context, will he commend the ongoing work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in disrupting their activities?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely will. There have been five confirmed national security attacks so far in 2017, and a small number of dissident republican terrorist groupings continue their campaign of violence. The threat is suppressed by the brave efforts of the PSNI and others, and by the strategic approach that we pursue. The PSNI and others who work to keep people safe have our full support for the public service they give.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware that a significant proportion of the resources available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to fight terrorism has to go towards investigating legacy cases. Will he give a commitment that any money used for legacy cases will be replaced to ensure that the PSNI has the resources it needs to combat the existing terrorist threat?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman may know that we have committed specific funds—an extra £32 million a year over the five-year spending review period—to deal with Northern Ireland-related terrorism. His point about legacy is valid and important, which is  why we both want to see the Stormont House bodies take forward a new approach to legacy. That is what I want to see in the new year.

Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the potential security implications of the Bombardier-Boeing dispute. In their telephone conversation yesterday, was the Prime Minister able to raise her concerns with the President directly?

James Brokenshire: There have been various discussions with the US and Canadian authorities, and with Bombardier itself, in relation to the continuing dispute. Obviously, we see this as unjustified and unwarranted. We await the latest determination, but we will continue to challenge this and to underline our key focus and endeavour on seeing that those important jobs in Belfast are protected.

David Hanson: Does the Secretary of State expect still to have access to the European arrest warrant to bring back criminals and terrorists who reside in the Irish Republic and commit acts in Northern Ireland?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will know about the cross-border work. I commend the work of the PSNI and the Garda Siochana in delivering security on the island of Ireland. Their very close co-operation points to a number of EU-related structures, which is why, knowing the significance and importance of deepening that relationship into the future, we want to see a new treaty established that is able to respond and address that co-operation.

Leaving the EU: Alignment

Preet Kaur Gill: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.

Gerald Jones: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.

James Brokenshire: We have been clear that the UK as a whole will be leaving the customs union and single market. We want our future relationship with the EU to be a deep and special partnership that works for all parts of the UK, while recognising Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.

Preet Kaur Gill: If, at the end of this process, Northern Ireland remains aligned with the single market and customs union while the rest of the UK is not, what impact do the Government believe that will have on the Northern Irish economy?

James Brokenshire: As the joint report highlighted last week, there are three steps: reaching a free trade agreement; then providing responses that meet the unique  circumstances of Northern Ireland; and, finally, the issue of alignment. We believe that it is possible and that we will address all these issues to ensure that we have not a hard border but a frictionless border that maximises the trading relationship without creating any new barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, where there is a reliance on trade, which is so important to the economy.

Gerald Jones: Has the Secretary of State’s office shown more diligence than the Department for Exiting the European Union in producing impact assessments on the effects to the Northern Ireland economy of all eventualities of leaving the European Union—and if not, why not?

James Brokenshire: I know this issue of impact assessments has been debated in this House previously. There are no formal impact assessments. Obviously, the Department for Exiting the European Union has provided detailed reports for the Select Committee, and it will be for the Committee to determine what happens with them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of the joint working across government of assessing the implications and informing those negotiations, so that we get the right deal for Northern Ireland and for the UK as  a whole.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State confirm that trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain within the UK single market is worth five times as much as trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

James Brokenshire: Yes, trade—economic activity—between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is several times more than that in relation to Ireland. But the point is that we look to strengthen the whole economy. Indeed, as the UK leaves the European Union, we want to see the Irish economy equally having that access to Great Britain. A reliance is placed upon that. We want to succeed and prosper as we leave the European Union.

Mark Harper: Is the Secretary of State not right to highlight that Northern Ireland’s rightful place is to make sure it is aligned with the rules of the rest of the UK, which is why Conservative Members had a clear manifesto commitment to do nothing to damage the single market of the United Kingdom?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend on that. Indeed, that principle was firmly enunciated through the provisions in the joint report, and that is the approach we will take as we move into phase 2 of the negotiations.

Nigel Dodds: As we prepare to exit the EU, it would be far better if the Northern Ireland Assembly were in place. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State comment on the report by Trevor Rainey on the pay of Members of the Legislative Assembly? Secondly, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the same principles that apply to MLA pay should also apply to Members of Parliament who do not fulfil their functions in this place?

James Brokenshire: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want to see the Executive restored, and we will be approaching this in earnest in the new year to seek to see that re-established. That matters on so many different levels. He highlights the issue raised in Trevor Rainey’s report. I commend Mr Rainey for providing the report and I will be considering the responses carefully.

Nigel Dodds: As well as not having the Assembly, not having Executive Ministers in place is of course a major disadvantage to Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State knows, if the Assembly were called tomorrow, the Democratic Unionist party would re-enter government, as would many of the other parties, apart from Sinn Féin. That is a dereliction of duty on its part, for which it has to answer. Does he accept that if we do not have an Executive up and running quickly, he will have to step in and provide Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office to direct Departments in the Province?

James Brokenshire: I know firmly that an increasing number of decisions need to be taken. That has been highlighted this week by the Northern Ireland civil service publishing a consultation on budgetary issues, showing some of the determinations that need to be made. I want to see Ministers and an Executive up and running as quickly as possible to do those things. Obviously, it needs to happen quickly, given the decisions that need to be taken.

Deidre Brock: If the Irish border deal means no regulatory divergence after Brexit, can the Secretary of State tell us where the regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU will be? Will it be in the Irish sea? Does this mean Northern Ireland is staying in the customs union and single market, or will the UK simply adhere to the rules of the customs union and single market after Brexit, without having any input into the rules?

James Brokenshire: I know the Prime Minister dealt with this in her statement on Monday, but let me say that we will be leaving the customs union and the single market. The hon. Lady talks about divergence, but actually the joint report talks about alignment, which is about pursuing the same objectives. That could be the same way, but it could be different. That is the whole point. It is about achieving those positive objectives, and that is what we will do.

Owen Smith: As you know, Mr Speaker, agriculture is more important in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK, and Northern Ireland is more reliant on EU farm payments than any other part of the UK, so 30,000 Ulster farmers need certainty about what Brexit is going to mean for them. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister reassured them that transition would occur under
“the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”—
including, I presume, the common agricultural policy—but on Monday she said the opposite. She said that on 29 March 2019, we will be leaving the common agricultural policy. Which one is right?

James Brokenshire: They are both right. We have said clearly that yes, we are leaving the common agricultural policy, but we have also said that we will maintain  payments in relation to those arrangements through to 2020. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman wants to look back at what the Prime Minister said about maintaining the same arrangements during the implementation period, that will answer his question.

Owen Smith: That cannot be correct. It cannot be right both that we will be under exactly the same EU rules and regulations, which is what the Prime Minister said in Florence, and that we will be leaving the common agricultural policy. If it is true that we are leaving the common agricultural policy, those 30,000 Ulster farmers and their families need to know how they are going to pay their mortgages and meet their other commitments in just 15 months’ time. This is a complete shambles. The Prime Minister is going to be here in a minute—can the Secretary of State tell her to sort this out?

James Brokenshire: The only shambles is the Opposition’s approach to Brexit. At this time of the year, many people will mark the 12 days of Christmas; we have had at least 12 different approaches to Brexit from Labour. Yes, we will be leaving the common agricultural policy, as the Prime Minister said on Monday, but she also underlined clearly our commitment in respect of those direct payments and, as I say, the transition and the need to provide certainty. The hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering does nothing to add to this—

John Bercow: Order. The trouble with these answers is that they are too long.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

Gerard Killen: If the Government will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to provide that same sex marriages issued in England, Wales and Scotland are recognised as marriages in Northern Ireland.

Chloe Smith: My position on this issue is clear: I voted in support of same-sex marriage in England and Wales and, like the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I hope that this can be extended to Northern Ireland in future. I believe marriage should be a common right across the UK. However, the fundamental position remains that same-sex marriage is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland.

Gerard Killen: If my husband and I stick to our plans to retire one day to his home town in Northern Ireland, upon my death, my better half would lose a husband in every sense of the word. The registry confirms that no reference to the marriage will be included on any certificate issued and my husband would be recorded simply as a surviving civil partner—years of marriage wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Does the Minister agree that, if the Democratic Unionist party is so keen on having no regulatory divergence from the UK, this is a good place to start?

Chloe Smith: I very much sympathise with this issue and share the frustration encapsulated in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, this is not the time to be unpicking the devolution settlement on this issue. It is, rightly, an issue for a future Executive to  return to and look at. We hope that the Executive can be brought back to do that and deal with many other important issues.

Sylvia Hermon: I would welcome assurances from the Minister that she and the Secretary of State have already met the leaders of the four main Churches in Northern Ireland to discuss the sensitive issue of the recognition of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. That assurance would be very helpful.

Chloe Smith: I can certainly confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department have regular contact with Church leaders. As I said, it is an important issue, but it really is an issue for a future devolved Government to look at.

Leaving the EU: Border Discussions

Tony Lloyd: What recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government on a frictionless border on the island of Ireland to inform the UK’s negotiations with the EU.

Chloe Smith: We speak regularly with counterparts in the Irish Government on a range of issues. As the Prime Minister has said, we will maintain the common travel area, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and no new borders within the United Kingdom.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful both to the Secretary of State and to the Minister for making it very clear that there will be no hard borders within the island of Ireland and no hard borders between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Will she make it very clear that a hard Brexit for the United Kingdom would be incompatible with the statement that she has just made? It is important that we have that clarity.

Chloe Smith: The Prime Minister has given that clarity. She was at this very Dispatch Box only earlier this week saying that we need not speak in terms of hard or soft Brexit. What we are out to do is to get the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that there already are different tariffs, for example, on petrol and diesel, and yet there is an open border? Surely the best way to ensure that there is an open border is to have a comprehensive free trade agreement with the rest of the European Union.

Chloe Smith: My right hon. Friend; I mean my hon. Friend—

Michael Fabricant: It should be right hon.

Chloe Smith: Quite right. My hon. Friend is correct on two counts. The first is that, of course, there is already co-operation across the border. He mentions the way that we need to be able to deal with fuel, for example, on the two sides of the border. He is also absolutely correct that what we want is a free trade agreement—a comprehensive deal—which is laid out in the agreement that the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels. That is the work ahead.

Paul Girvan: Minister, in recent comments, the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Varadkar, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Coveney, have indicated that they will draw a border down the middle of the Irish sea. May I say that those sorts of comments do not give much confidence back to the people of Northern Ireland and the Unionist community that I represent, who want to be an integral part of the United Kingdom?

Chloe Smith: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we in this House want to see no new borders inside the United Kingdom. We think that the Union is a precious thing that must be preserved. I will also just note, as I did to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), that the relationship that we have with the Irish Government and that we want to continue to have with them should be one of close partners. We should work together to ensure the prosperity of the people in Northern Ireland, and I shall leave it to the Irish Government to continue to hold that strong relationship with us.

Bob Blackman: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman on the understanding that his question consists of a single short sentence.

Bob Blackman: Given that the vast majority of trade goes from the Republic to the north in terms of coming to the UK, can my hon. Friend confirm that we will have no need for a hard border and that the only prospect of a hard border is if the EU sets one up in southern Ireland?

John Bercow: Well done.

Chloe Smith: To keep the answer short, this should be a shared endeavour to ensure a future trade deal that has benefits for the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom. That is what we want to see.

Leaving the EU: Free Trade Agreement

Kerry McCarthy: If his Department will provide the evidential basis that a free trade deal similar to the one that Canada negotiated with the EU will maintain the border on the island of Ireland under its current terms after the UK leaves the EU.

James Brokenshire: As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are seeking a bold and ambitious free trade agreement that is of greater scope and ambition than any existing agreement. We are determined to reach a deal that works for the people of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

Kerry McCarthy: At the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this morning, the Environment Secretary made it clear that the plus-plus-plus in a Canada plus-plus-plus agreement ought to include agri-foods, which is obviously really important to Northern Ireland. What steps is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland taking to try to ensure that that is included in any future deal?

James Brokenshire: I agree with what the hon. Lady has said: agriculture is a key part of the economy within Northern Ireland. It is something that we highlighted very firmly in our August paper and will want to take forward in the phase 2 negotiations.

Kevin Foster: In assessing the evidence around a potential trade deal of this nature, did the Secretary of State conclude, as I have, that for decades we have successfully operated the common travel area between ourselves and Ireland and we will be able to do so under a similar deal, and that any hard border in Ireland will be the responsibility of Dublin and Brussels, not London and Belfast?

James Brokenshire: We are pleased that the joint principles on the continuation of the common travel area after the UK leaves were very firmly highlighted in the joint report. I believe that there is that joint endeavour, and that is what we have been pursuing.

Gavin Robinson: On the Canada-EU trade deal, Bombardier in my constituency is a company that greatly benefits from that trading relationship. Will the Secretary of State not only continue his support for Bombardier, but ensure that any future trade agreements do nothing that will injure such an important part of our local economy?

James Brokenshire: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Bombardier and commend his work to highlight this important issue. Clearly the protection of the Northern Ireland economy and jobs will remain a focus of our attention.

The Economy

Jo Churchill: What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.

Chloe Smith: This Government are committed to building an economy that is fit for the future right across the United Kingdom. That is clear from our industrial strategy and from the benefits for Northern Ireland in the Chancellor’s Budget. Ultimately, though, the key requirement for stronger growth is political stability, and I return to the theme that we should see devolution restored.

Jo Churchill: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the recent labour figures for Northern Ireland showing 3.9% unemployment, which is down from over 7% in 2010? Does she agree that yesterday’s CBI study, which exemplifies the fact that this country is ready to grow and provide jobs, is a testament to Northern Ireland businesses growing a strong economy?

Chloe Smith: I join my hon. Friend in remarking on the important figures. The unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is now down to 3.9% from over 7% in early 2010. Indeed, it is lower than the rate for the UK as a whole. That is, indeed, thanks to many businesses in Northern Ireland creating jobs, but it is also down to a  Government who take a balanced approach to public spending, unlike the Labour party, and we wish to see more of that.

Ian Paisley Jnr: A strong economy requires stable politics. Does the Minister agree with this week’s editorial in the News Letter—Britain’s oldest running newspaper—which states categorically that Her Majesty’s Government need to “slap down” Mr Coveney, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, because the comments he is making are destabilising the economy of Northern Ireland?

Chloe Smith: The simplest thing to say is that we stand fully behind the Belfast agreement. We do have a strong relationship with the Irish Government that we wish to continue. My hon. Friend is right that political stability is required for a strong economy. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), the Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. We would like to see a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland who are able to do the same.

John Bercow: I call Stephen Pound—get in there, man.

Steve Pound: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker.
Well, this is all very well, but the Secretary of State referred to yesterday’s statement by the Northern Ireland civil service that is casting a dark pall over Northern Ireland. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say that, when the Government suggest ways of balancing the books by February, they will rule out scrapping the free bus pass, scrapping education maintenance allowance or even—heaven forfend—reintroducing prescription charges?

Chloe Smith: There are indeed important challenges to be faced in order to secure sustainable finances in Northern Ireland for the long term. Tackling those challenges requires political decisions, which is why we should all wish to see a restored Administration in Stormont.

Leaving the EU: Customs Officers

Stuart McDonald: What estimate the Government have made of the number of customs officers that will be required to conduct border checks in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

Peter Grant: What estimate the Government have made of the number of customs officers that will be required to conduct border checks in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

James Brokenshire: Customs is a matter for phase 2 of the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. The Government are committed to ensuring that the border remains open with no physical infrastructure, as set out in the joint report agreed with the EU on 8 December.

Stuart McDonald: When even the Government accept that their proposals for a frictionless border are untested and go beyond existing precedents, we can see why businesses read that as undeliverable, unless ongoing membership of the single market and customs union are involved. Given that the Minister insists that such membership is not necessary, will he tell us what progress has been made in exploring and designing alternative solutions?

James Brokenshire: The joint report highlights the progress that has been made. It sets out the framework that will take us into phase 2, with customs and other arrangements to ensure that there is no physical infrastructure on the border and to see that open trading relationship.

Peter Grant: The Exiting the European Union Committee visited Northern Ireland a few weeks ago, and everyone we spoke to was very anxious to press on us the fact that any change at all to the status of the Irish border would be seen as a backward step. Does the Secretary of State agree that the reddest of all red lines in the Brexit negotiations must be the maintenance of the integrity of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process that depends on it?

James Brokenshire: I do agree in terms of the maintenance of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—and, very firmly, in terms of not seeing any hard border re-emerging, and that is what has been reflected in the joint report.

John Bercow: I think we should hear from the former Chair of the Select Committee. The final inquiry in this section today—Mr Laurence Robertson.

Devolution Settlement

Laurence Robertson: Whether he plans to propose changes to the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

James Brokenshire: I have no current plans to propose any changes to the devolution settlement. This would be matter for discussion between the main Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government in accordance with the Belfast agreement.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but given that the failing of the Executive and the Assembly to exist is detrimental to Northern Ireland, and given that it is only one party in Northern Ireland that is refusing to allow them to function, is it not time to look at the Belfast agreement to see whether we can evolve it so that, in future, the Assembly and the Executive will continue to serve the people of Northern Ireland? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I am rather disappointed that the former Chair of the Select Committee was not heard in hushed and reverential tones, but we may have to wait until 2018 for that.

James Brokenshire: I agree with my hon. Friend in terms of the need to see devolved government restored. That is where the focus needs to remain and it is why the Government will be doing all that we can, and reinjecting further momentum into the process, so that we see that Executive re-established and devolved government functioning for all the people of Northern Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Rosena Allin-Khan: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 20 December.

Theresa May: May I start by wishing all Members and staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year? I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our warmest Christmas messages and wishes to all our armed forces who are stationed overseas. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the sacrifices that they make on our behalf.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Rosena Allin-Khan: In 2009, the Prime Minister said it was
“a tragedy that the number of children falling into the poverty cycle”
was “continuing to rise.” Every child deserves to have a roof over their head and food on the table, yet on her watch, in Wandsworth alone, the number of families forced to survive on food banks is continuing to rise, and 2,500 children—yes, children—will wake up homeless on Christmas day. So my question is simple: when will this austerity-driven Government say enough is enough and put an end to this tragedy?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady should note that, in fact, this Government have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of absolute poverty. But it is important for all those who have heard her question to be aware of this: she talks of 2,500 children in Wandsworth waking up homeless on Christmas day; anybody hearing that will assume that what that means is that 2,500 children will be sleeping on our streets. It does not. [Interruption.] It does not mean that. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Hon. and right hon. Members are accustomed to these exchanges taking somewhat longer. So be it. The questions will be heard, and the answers from the Prime Minister will be heard. I am in no hurry at all.

Theresa May: It is important that we are clear about this for all those who hear these questions because, as we all know, families with children who are accepted as homeless will be provided with accommodation. I would also point out to Opposition Members that statutory homelessness is lower now than it was for most of the period of the last Labour Government.

Paul Beresford: Perhaps I could draw my right hon. Friend away from Brexit, which is about to crop up, I suspect. I believe it is common knowledge that the Conservative party is the party that strives to protect our green belt. It was therefore a shock to me and a vast number of my constituents in the Guildford wards of Mole Valley when Guildford Borough Council submitted its draft local plan. The council seeks to build 57% of the houses in its plan on green belt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should focus their imaginations on developing buildings of sufficient height, density and imagination on brownfield sites, not green belt?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue on behalf of his constituents. As he will know, a local authority may alter a green belt boundary only in exceptional circumstances. In our housing White Paper, we were very clear that this means
“when they…have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting…identified development”
needs. Of course, that includes looking at and building on brownfield sites. In the case of Guildford, I understand that the local plan was submitted for examination earlier this month, and of course it will be examined by an independent inspector for soundness in due course. I can assure my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right that we want to ensure that green belt is protected.

Jeremy Corbyn: Could I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to wish you, all Members of the House, all our public servants and all our armed forces a very happy Christmas and all best wishes for 2018?
I pay tribute to our very hard-working national health service staff, many of whom, unlike us, will not get a break this Christmas. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the national health service has the resources it needs this winter?

Theresa May: First of all, I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about those NHS staff who will not get a break a Christmas and will be working very hard. Of course, it is not only our NHS staff who will be working hard this Christmas; it is also those in our emergency services and many others who go to work on Christmas day so that others can enjoy their Christmas day. We thank all of them.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about preparations for winter. I can say this to him:
“The health service has prepared more extensively for this winter than ever before. These plans are helping to ensure safe, timely care for patients”.
As it happens, those are not my words—they are the words of the chief executive of NHS Providers.

Jeremy Corbyn: Well, Simon Stevens did say that the NHS needs £4 billion next year just to stand still, and the reality is that the Government have given the NHS less than half of what he asked for.
The Prime Minister talks about the money that the NHS needs, but 50,000 people were left waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors last month. Last week, more ambulances were diverted to other hospitals because of A&E pressures, and 12,000 patients were kept waiting  in the back of ambulances because there was no room at the A&E. So I ask the Prime Minister again: has the NHS got the resources it needs this winter to deal with this crisis?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that NHS funding is at record levels, and in the autumn Budget we put some extra funding into the NHS for this winter, in addition to the £6.3 billion extra that is going into the NHS over the coming years.
Time and time again, the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House and complains about what is happening in the health service. Can I just tell the House what is happening in the health service? We see now 7 million more diagnostic tests than seven years ago, 2.2 million more people getting operations, and survival rates for cancer at their highest ever level. Those are figures, but what does that mean? It means more people getting the treatment they need. It means more elderly people getting their hip operations. And it means that today there are nearly 6,500 people alive who would not have been if we had not improved our cancer care.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the first three weeks of this winter, 30,000 patients were left waiting in the back of ambulances for more than half an hour. These delays risk lives. If the NHS had the resources it needed, we would expect it to be meeting its key treatment and waiting time targets. Can the Prime Minister give us a cast-iron pledge that all those targets will be met in 2018?

Theresa May: In 2018, we are looking, yes, to improve the standard of care that we provide in our health service, and to ensure that we improve on the figures that I have just given the right hon. Gentleman so that more people are treated in our health service and we have better survival rates for cancer. That is why we have been putting the extra money into the national health service. But it is not just about putting extra money into the national health service; it is about the proper integration of health and social care at grassroots level. That is what the sustainability and transformation partnerships in many areas are about—opposed by the Labour party. That is why we have lifted the cap so that there are more nurse training places—opposed by the Labour party. It is about ensuring that our NHS has the staff and the capability to deliver the first-class, world-class service that is our NHS. We should be proud of our NHS. We are, and we are going to make it even better.

Jeremy Corbyn: A&E waiting time targets have not been met for two and a half years. Cancer treatment targets have not been met for two years. Our A&E departments are bursting at the seams because the Government have failed to ensure that people can get a GP appointment when they need one. The Government promised to recruit an extra 5,000 GPs by 2020. Where are they?

Theresa May: We are seeing more training places for our GPs. The right hon. Gentleman talks about A&E, and if he wants to look at targets, let us talk about what has happened in Wales. The standard on A&E in Wales was last met in 2008. Let me just think: which party is in government in Wales? Is it the Conservatives? No, it is the Labour party. On cancer care, the standard was last met in June 2008 in Wales.  The right hon. Gentleman should look at what the Labour party is actually delivering before he comes to this House and complains.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Welsh Government rely on a block grant from England that has been cut by 5% to 2020. Despite that, 85.5% of cancer patients in Wales start their treatment within 62 days, which is a rate higher than that achieved in England.
My question was about GPs. Perhaps the Prime Minister is not aware that there are 1,000 fewer GPs than there were on the day she became Prime Minister. It is not only the lack of GPs; another issue that is driving people into A&Es is the £6 billion of cuts made to social care budgets. Some 2.3 million older people have unmet care needs. Does the Prime Minister regret the fact that the Chancellor—he is sitting right next to her—did not put one penny in his Budget into social care?

Theresa May: We put £2 billion of extra money into social care in the spring Budget. The right hon. Gentleman started his question by referencing the record of the last Labour Government on health. The last Labour Government’s NHS legacy was described as a “mess”, and we are clearing that up and putting more money into the NHS. Who described Labour’s NHS legacy as a “mess”? It was the right hon. Gentleman. When he is running for leader, he denounces the Labour party, but now he is leader of the Labour party he is trying to praise it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I can quote something the Prime Minister might be familiar with:
“If government wants to reduce the pressures on the health service and keep people out of hospital in the first place, then it needs to tackle the chronic underfunding of care and support services in the community, which are at a tipping point.”
Who said that? Izzi Seccombe, the Conservative leader of Warwickshire County Council.
The question was on social care, but the issue is about the NHS as a whole. It is there to provide care and dignity for all if they fall ill, but our NHS goes into this winter in crisis: nurses and other workers—no pay rise for years; NHS targets—not met for years; staff shortages; and GP numbers falling. The reality is mental health budgets have been cut, social care budgets have been cut and public health budgets have been cut. The Prime Minister today has shown just how out of touch she is. The truth is our NHS is being recklessly—I repeat, recklessly—put at risk by her Government. That is the truth.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong because NHS funding has gone up. He is wrong because social care funding has gone up. But not that long ago, he was saying that he would be Prime Minister by Christmas. Well, he was wrong; I am, and the Conservatives are in government. Not that long ago, he said we would not deliver on phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations. Well, he was wrong; we have made sufficient progress and we are moving on to phase 2 of the Brexit negotiations. And not that long ago, he predicted that the Budget would be a failure; in fact, the Budget  was a success, and it is delivering more money for our national health service. Labour—wrong, wrong, wrong;  Conservatives—in government, delivering on Brexit, with a Budget for homes and the health service: Conservatives delivering a Britain fit for the future.

Mark Harper: Gloucestershire College is building a brand-new campus in my constituency, made possible by millions of pounds of Government support. May I thank the Prime Minister for that investment, and does it not show that this is a Government committed to investing in the skills necessary to make this an economy and a country fit for the future?

Theresa May: I am very pleased to welcome the development that is taking place in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am also pleased to agree with him—I know he believes very strongly in this—on the importance of skills and training for the future; and that is a good commitment of this Government. It is more important than ever that people in this country are developing the skills they need to get the highly skilled, well-paid jobs of the future. That is what we are doing with our money going into technical education, and the college in his constituency will play an important part in that.

Ian Blackford: May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, all Members, staff and of course our armed forces and emergency personnel a merry Christmas and a good new year when it comes? We also, I am sure, wish for a peaceful election tomorrow in Catalonia.
In 2013, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, when reflecting on his position in representing the majority interest in the Royal Bank of Scotland on the departure of its then chief executive, said that
“of course my consent and approval was sought.”
Was the Government right to intervene in the departure of the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland?

Theresa May: Obviously, decisions have been taken in the past in relation to Royal Bank of Scotland; the key decision was taken at the time of the financial crisis in relation to the support that the Government provided to Royal Bank of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to raise branch closures, as he did last week, I am afraid I have to tell him that he will get the same answer as he got last week. This is a commercial decision for Royal Bank of Scotland, but the Government do ensure, through the protocol that is in place and the work that has been done with the Post Office to provide extra services, that services are available for people.

Ian Blackford: It is supposed to be Prime Minister’s questions; the Prime Minister is supposed to at least try to answer the question. If it was right in 2013 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to intervene on the departure of the chief executive officer, then of course it is quite right that the Government shoulder their responsibilities when the last 13 branches in town are going to be closed in Scotland. Prime Minister, show some leadership: stand up for our communities. Bring Ross McEwan into 10 Downing Street and tell him that you are going to stand up for the national interest and stop these bank closures.

Theresa May: The decision on individual bank branches is, of course, an operational decision for the bank. The right hon. Gentleman talks about standing  up for communities and standing up for people across Scotland. I have to say to him, that is a bit rich, coming from an SNP which, in government in Scotland, is going to increase taxes for 1.2 million Scots. The Conservative Government are reducing tax for 2.4 million Scots. There is only one clear message to people in Scotland: “Conservatives back you; SNP tax you.” [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I wish the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and his hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) all the best for their wedding on Friday of this week, which I look forward to attending.

Jack Lopresti: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I look forward to seeing you there.
I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that defence of the realm and the protection of our people is the first duty of the Government. Would she further agree that any future Government who failed to support our armed forces, who wanted to abolish our nuclear deterrent and who sympathised with terrorists, would endanger our security as well as placing hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk up and down the country, as well as 12,000 in my constituency?

Theresa May: Mr Speaker, I join you in congratulating my hon. Friends on their forthcoming wedding, which unfortunately, because of my travels, I will not be able to attend. I wish them all the very best.
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and I absolutely agree with him that defence is the first duty of the Government. That is why we are committed to our NATO pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence every year. We have a £36 billion defence budget, which will rise to almost £40 billion by 2020-21, and we are spending £178 billion on equipment over the next 10 years. He is absolutely right: a party like the one opposite, which wants to get rid of our nuclear deterrent, cut our armed forces and pull out of NATO, would not strengthen our defences; it would weaken them.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the strong affection and support for Gibraltar across this House. In the light of the guidelines published this morning, will she give a commitment not to enter into any agreement with the European Union that excludes Gibraltar from the transitional or implementation arrangements and periods?

Theresa May: We and the EU have been clear that Gibraltar is covered by the withdrawal agreement and our article 50 exit negotiations. Just to confirm what I said on Monday, as we negotiate this, we will be negotiating to ensure the relationships are there for Gibraltar as well. We are not going to exclude Gibraltar from our negotiations for either the implementation period or the future agreement. I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Scott Mann: As the Prime Minister will be aware, dairy is very important for growing children and as part of a healthy diet. The sector is integral to Great British food and  drink. As the chairman of the dairy all-party parliamentary group, may I ask whether she will support our campaign next year to rebrand milk, to ask supermarkets to include it as part of their meal deal selections and as part of a healthy diet to promote drinking milk in schools? Will she join me this Christmas in raising a glass to our fabulous dairy farmers?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the work of our dairy farmers. He talks about the importance of dairy. He is, rightly, a great advocate for rural issues. It is one of the most efficient, innovative and high-quality dairy industries in the EU. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will be very happy to discuss the particular points he raises, but I join him in recognising the importance of our dairy industry.

Ronnie Cowan: Eight European countries, plus Australia and Canada, have introduced drug consumption rooms. The result has been a reduction in the spread of HIV and hepatitis C, and a reduction in crime. It is also worth noting that while drug-related deaths have in the past four years continued to increase in the UK, there has never been a drug overdose in a supervised drug consumption room. In the interests of public health, will the Prime Minister introduce DCRs in the United Kingdom, or, if not, will she devolve the relevant powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that the Scottish Government can do so?

Theresa May: First, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Home Office recently published the Government’s updated drugs strategy. I have a different opinion to some Members of this House. Some are very liberal in their approach to the way that drugs should be treated. I am very clear that we should recognise the damage that drugs do to people’s lives. Our aim should be to ensure that people come off drugs, do not go on drugs in the first place and keep clear of drugs. That is what we should focus on.

Mims Davies: May I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for listening to me so carefully on issues relating to women’s health and in particular pregnancy, including Primodos, valproate and mesh implants, all of which have been raised by my constituents? Like my right hon. Friend, they feel very strongly about tackling female health issues and are very grateful to be heard. Will she assure me that she will continue to listen, so that women do not feel they are left behind or forgotten when it comes to health equality?

Theresa May: I was very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members to discuss these important issues that have a real impact on women’s lives. Women want answers to what has happened, and I can assure her that the Government and I will continue to listen on these issues. We will continue to look to see what we can do to ensure that women do not suffer in the way that they have in the past. We will keep that clear focus on women’s health.

Clive Efford: Mr Speaker, happy Christmas. Last year, the Prime Minister told the  that on Christmas day she likes to prepare and cook her own goose. In the spirit of  Christmas, may I suggest that to extract the maximum pleasure from the messy job of stuffing her goose, she names it either Michael or Boris?

John Bercow: Order. I am sure the Prime Minister has better taste than that.

Theresa May: I think I will be having to resist the temptation to call the goose Jeremy.

Christopher Chope: On Thursday last week, there was a very important local referendum in Christchurch. The result was that 84% of the people of Christchurch want to keep it as an independent sovereign borough and are against its abolition. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I cannot understand this atmosphere. I want to hear about the views of the good burghers of Christchurch.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government respect the views of the people of Christchurch and give sufficient time—indeed, extra time—for the council to draw up alternative proposals that properly reflect the wishes of the people of Christchurch?

Theresa May: As my hon. Friend obviously knows, being very close to this, local councils have been considering this issue over a significant period, as has the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Conor Burns: And there is a lot of support!

Theresa May: As an hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, other councils in the area support a change to the governance structure. Of course, DCLG will be looking very carefully at the views of the councils to ensure that the best result is achieved for the people of Dorset.

Laura Pidcock: We in North West Durham have some of the best schools—

John Bercow: Order. It might be moderately good natured, but nevertheless it is disruptive. The hon. Lady is entitled to be heard. For as long as she is in the House and I am in the Chair, she will be heard, and that is the end of it.

Laura Pidcock: We in North West Durham have some of the very best schools, but whatever the new funding formula, they are dealing with deficits after years of real-terms cuts and feeling the corrosive effect of academisation. On collaboration, school staff are working for longer for less pay. Please, Prime Minister, do not say there is more money in our schools. The fact remains that a significant proportion of schools in North West Durham will see totally unjust reductions in their funding. We have run out of ways to meet the Government’s cuts. Will she tell us what they should  do next?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady asks me not to say that there is more money going into our schools, but of course there is more money going into our schools. That is the reality. The figures are that funding for our schools will rise by over £1.4 billion next year and   almost £1.2 billion the year after, and we have protected the pupil premium, which is worth nearly £2.5 billion to support those who need it most. If we listen to the Labour party, education seems only to be about the amount of money put in, but actually parents are looking at the quality of education provided, and I notice that there is an increase of over 12,000 children in the County Durham local authority now in good or outstanding schools. That is because of this Government.

Suella Fernandes: The year 2017 has been an excellent one for Fareham College: rated outstanding by Ofsted, shortlisted by The Times Educational Supplement for college of the year and successful in its bid to the local enterprise partnership to deliver its civil engineering provision. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing the principal and his staff a happy Christmas, congratulating them on supporting our young people into work and—because it is Christmas—creating a Britain fit for the future?

Theresa May: I am very happy not only to send Christmas wishes to the principal, staff and students at Fareham College, but to congratulate them on working hard to achieve such excellent results. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about ensuring that young people have the skills, training and education they need for the jobs of the future. It is about building a Britain fit for the future.

Drew Hendry: For many terminally ill people on universal credit, this will be their last Christmas. Does the Prime Minister agree that it can never be appropriate for terminally ill people to be forced to meet work coaches or to fit into an arbitrary six-month prognosis to claim support? Will she listen—finally—to the experts at the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Macmillan CAB and remove these conditions to allow these people some dignity as they, with their families, face the end of their lives?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to deal with cases where somebody has a terminal illness with the utmost sensitivity. These issues have been raised before. The conditions and principles applied to terminally ill people claiming universal credit are in fact the same as those for people claiming employment and support allowance, and have remained the same for successive Governments. A number of approaches can be taken, and there are several options for how people progress through the system, but he is right that we should deal with terminally ill people with sensitivity. That is what the system intends to do.

Nigel Evans: This morning I met Liam Allan, the young student whose life was put on hold for two years and who had to endure torture until his case collapsed last week. This week another case collapsed because of a lack of disclosure. Does the Prime Minister agree that when allegations are made there should be a full investigation, and that full disclosure should be made to the Crown Prosecution Service and to both lawyers?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The issue of disclosure has come to a focus of concern as a result of the case that he has cited and, I understand, another case which is in the  press today. I can tell him that, even before these cases arose, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had initiated a review of disclosure. I think it important that we look at the issue again to ensure that we are truly providing justice.

Lucy Powell: According to the Prime Minister’s own Social Mobility Commission, social mobility in Britain is stalling, and for many it is “getting worse not better.” According to her former chief of staff, the social mobility action plan released last week was
“disappointing. Full of jargon but short on meaningful policies, it would have been better left unpublished.”
Does she agree with him?

Theresa May: The social mobility action plan
“will play an important role in enabling less advantaged young people to get on in life.”
That is not what I have said; it is what the Sutton Trust has said, and the Sutton Trust has a fine record in helping disadvantaged young people to get on in life. If the hon. Lady wants some more quotes, the Association of Colleges has said:
“The plan sets out an ambitious agenda to tackle longstanding and deep-seated inequalities which the education system struggles to overcome.”
It is a good plan, and it will make a real difference to young people’s lives.

Alec Shelbrooke: In the 1980s, Mrs Thatcher famously commented to the Vietnamese—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. This is very discourteous, and very unfair on the hon. Gentleman. Let us hear the fella.

Alec Shelbrooke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, in the 1980s Mrs Thatcher famously asked why, if Vietnam was so wonderful, millions of people were getting into boats to leave it. With that in mind, may I ask my right hon. Friend, as she enters the second phase of the Brexit negotiations, “If World Trade Organisation rules are so wonderful, why do so many countries seek WTO trade agreements?”

Theresa May: Of course countries around the world can trade. The question is, on what terms are they trading? We want to see a free trade agreement negotiated with the European Union. We also want to see free trade agreements negotiated with countries around the rest of the world. We are believers in free trade, because we believe that it brings growth, prosperity, jobs and a secure future to this country.

Steve McCabe: May I wish the Prime Minister a merry Christmas? As she sits down to her Christmas dinner, will she spare a thought for the 1 million youngsters who, the Children’s Society calculates, are set to lose their school dinners because of the Government’s universal credit plans?  In the season of good will, why does she not offer to fix that?

Theresa May: I wish the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas too, and a happy new year. In fact, the introduction of the Government’s proposed arrangements for free school meals under universal credit will lead to more children having access to them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I wish you and everyone else a very happy Christmas, Mr Speaker?
Does not Michel Barnier’s claim that UK banks will lose their passporting rights post-Brexit—as opposed to the Bank of England’s statement that EU banks will be able to continue to operate here—vindicate my right hon. Friend’s principled and strong stance in negotiating reciprocity for EU and UK citizens?

Theresa May: We value the important role that the City of London plays, not just as a financial centre for Europe but as a financial centre for the world, and we want to retain and maintain that. Mr Barnier has made a number of comments recently about the opening negotiating position of the European Union. Both the Bank of England and the Treasury have today set out reassurance about ensuring that banks will be able to continue to operate and the City of London will continue to retain its global position. That will, however, be part of the negotiations on phase 2 of Brexit, and we are very clear about how important it is.

Graham Jones: Mr and Mrs Walker from Great Harwood in my constituency have a son with learning difficulties. In August, Mr Walker was knocked down by a driver who was over the limit, had taken drugs, had no lights and was speeding. Mr Walker is 69, and he is now quadriplegic. He is not entitled to the personal independence payment, he cannot access Motability, and he and Mrs Walker are now paying £400 per calendar month for a hire car. I wrote to the Department for Work and Pensions about this case on 21 November and have not heard a reply. It is shocking that this country and this Government cannot look after the elderly and the disabled. Will the Prime Minister look into this case urgently?

Theresa May: First, may I give our best wishes to Mr Walker and his family and say how sorry we are to hear of what has befallen him? The hon. Gentleman references a letter to the DWP and I will ensure that case is investigated and he receives a response.

Chris Green: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the work of Fortalice, which has provided domestic abuse support in Bolton for 40 years? Will she consider under the current reforms the benefits of a new funding structure for domestic abuse refuges separate from the supported housing sector, so that refuges can continue to deliver their specialist support?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of refuges, and I am also very happy to join him in praising the work of Fortalice and services like it across the country. He mentions the reforms that we are putting in place. Indeed, that is because we feel that at the moment the system is not responsive to the needs of vulnerable women in local areas. That is why we want to put the funding in the  hands of local authorities, but bring in new oversight to make sure we are delivering the right support for the right people. It is trying to ensure that we are focusing the support on those who need it and that the system is more responsive to the needs of vulnerable women.

Bill Esterson: The inappropriate treatment of smaller businesses by the Royal Bank of Scotland destroyed businesses, ripped families apart and saw people take their own lives. RBS is owned by the Government, so will the Prime Minister set up the full independent inquiry which is needed to deliver justice for the victims?

Theresa May: My understanding is that this issue is being properly looked into. Of course, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and indeed will have been expressed by other Members of this House, and the Government are looking into that.

Stephen Kerr: Does the Prime Minister share my dismay that the Scottish National party Government are planning on raising taxes on hard-working Scots when they could raise the same amount, if not more, by just getting their own house in order and improving efficiencies?

Theresa May: What the Scottish Government are proposing means that there are 1.2 million Scots earning over £26,000 who will be paying more tax than people in England. [Interruption.] I was not aware of the fact that my hon. Friend has given this House, which is very important—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but may I ask her to face the House, because some of us cannot hear fully, and I would like to hear fully?

Theresa May: I was making the point that my hon. Friend has made an important addition to the knowledge of this House, which is that if the SNP Government got their own house in order, they could save the same amount of money that they will be raising by raising taxes, and not put that extra tax burden on people earning over £26,000.

Nigel Dodds: In light of the very loose, inaccurate and misrepresentative language coming from politicians outside Northern Ireland who should know better, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repeat to the House and the public in Northern Ireland—both sides of the community—the well established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland, which makes it clear that the internal arrangements and decisions on Northern Ireland are a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the parties in Northern Ireland?

Theresa May: I am very happy to make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman, and to confirm what he says. We are very clear about the position and the decisions that will be taken about Northern Ireland. What we of course want to see is a Northern Ireland Executive restored so that devolved decisions can be taken by that Northern Ireland Executive. The right  hon. Gentleman also wants to see that Executive restored, and we will continue to work with his party and other parties across all communities to see that happen.

Julian Lewis: As one of the signatories to amendment 400 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, may I seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that its provisions to change the date of our leaving the EU will be invoked only in extremely exceptional circumstances, if at all, and only for a very short period?

Theresa May: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend and others that reassurance. We are very clear that we will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 at 11 pm. The Bill that is going through does not determine that the UK leaves the EU; that is part of the article 50 process and a matter of international law. It is important that we have the same position legally as the European Union, which is why we have accepted the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the House the we would use that power only in exceptional circumstances for the shortest possible time, and that an affirmative motion would be brought to the House.

Rosie Cooper: The Government, the Ministry of Justice, NHS England and the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust should be thoroughly ashamed of their part in the national disgrace that is HMP Liverpool. Will the Prime Minister assure the whole House that those responsible for the deplorable conditions, for the lack of care and harm that has led to the suicide of some prisoners, and for the harm that has been caused to staff and prisoners will be held to account, that proper disciplinary action will be taken, and that they will not be allowed simply to move to other jobs? We need accountability for this tragedy.

Theresa May: As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) said yesterday that he expects the report on HMP Liverpool to be published early in the new year. I understand that a number of actions have been taken, including changes to prison management. Overall, of course, we are increasing frontline staff in our prisons by putting more money into that, and we are increasing the support available to vulnerable offenders, especially during the first 24 hours of custody. We have also invested more in mental health awareness training for prison officers. But of course my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will look carefully at the report when it is published.

John Baron: rose—

John Bercow: I am sorry if I was keeping the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) awake, or perhaps he has some other pressing business. I want to hear the fella!

John Baron: And a merry Christmas to you as well, Mr Speaker.
The Prime Minister has just given an assurance that amendment 400 will be used only in extremis and for a very short period of time. May I press her to be more specific? Will she assure the House that if the power is used at all, it will be used only for a matter of weeks, or for a couple of months at most? There is a concern that it could indefinitely extend our stay in the EU.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for seeking further clarification on that point. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, we are going to leave on 29 March 2019. That is what we are working to, but we want to ensure that we have the same legal position as the European Union, which is why amendment 400, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, has been accepted. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay that, if that power were to be used, it would be only in extremely exceptional circumstances and for the shortest possible time. We are not talking about extensions—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We would hear better if the Prime Minister faced the House, but we would also hear better if Members did not keep wittering from a sedentary position. Let us have a new year’s resolution that there will be an end to sedentary chuntering, wittering and hollering.

Theresa May: Mr Speaker, I apologise for not facing the Opposition, but I was hoping to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay heard my response. I can assure him that we are talking about the shortest possible time, should that power be used. I am clear that we are leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019.

Rachel Reeves: Last Friday, Jo Cox’s sister Kim, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) and I published the Jo Cox loneliness commission manifesto. Will the Prime Minister join us in urging everybody to look out over Christmas for neighbours, family and friends who are struggling with the pain of loneliness? Will the Government also play their part by publishing a strategy on loneliness and by responding fully to our recommendations in the new year?

Theresa May: I know that the hon. Lady has worked extremely hard on this important issue together with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). We are getting more and more awareness of the impact of loneliness on people, and we all recognise that social isolation is an issue. The matter is of importance to the Government, and we are looking at a number of things that we can do to help reduce loneliness. However, this is not just about what the Government can do; as the hon. Lady says, it is about what communities and neighbours can do. In my constituency of Maidenhead, I am pleased to say that the churches work together on Christmas day to bring elderly people who would otherwise be on their own together for a community lunch. That is just one small example of what we can all do in our communities to help to overcome the problem of loneliness.

Andrew Selous: It is very welcome that the Prime Minister is taking personal  charge of building the homes that this country needs, which is such an important social justice issue for our country’s future. How does the Prime Minister see our doing that at the necessary scale and speed?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right that we need to build more homes and that we need to build them at scale. I am pleased to say that we saw 217,000 new homes built last year, which is a level of house building that has not been seen, apart from in one year, over the past 30 years, but we need to go further. That is why we have proposed several changes in terms of support for affordable housing, for councils and for people trying to get their foot on the housing ladder. We are also working with local authorities in a number of ways to ensure that land is released and that builders build out the planning permissions that they have.

John Bercow: Finally, I call Tim Farron.

Tim Farron: Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. That was not a very seasonal response from the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) from a sedentary position. I expect better of the hon. Gentleman.

Tim Farron: Thank you for your characteristic greeting, Mr Speaker. I wish everyone a merry Christmas, especially the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson).
The Prime Minister will be aware that NHS England has extended the deadline for its consultation on the allocation of radiotherapy services into the new year. Will she therefore take this opportunity to ensure that one of the criteria is shortening the distances that people have to travel—travel time has a massive impact on outcomes—so that people who live in places such as south Cumbria can access this life-saving, utterly urgent treatment safely and quickly?

Theresa May: We are of course all aware of the need to ensure not only that people are able to access the treatment that they need, but that they can access it in an appropriate way. We recognise that in some rural areas that means travelling longer distances than in other parts of the country. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is a consultation, and NHS England will be looking closely at the issues. I am sure that he will have made representations.

Points of Order

Nick Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Budget debate, I raised the issue of steelworkers transferring out their pensions. Some financial advisers are fleecing steelworkers, and the regulators have been unco-ordinated and complacent. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury promised me a response to my speech, but none has been forthcoming. Mr Speaker, do you know whether the Government will be making a statement on this urgent matter?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise that point of order.  I recognise that the matter is of considerable concern to him, to many other Members and, indeed, to their constituents. The simple fact is that, as things stand, I have received no indication of any intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement on this matter. Therefore, I am not at present expecting a Minister to offer to do so before we rise for the Christmas recess. However, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter at business questions tomorrow, and he is sufficiently experienced in the House to know that a range of mechanisms is open to him to try to secure the attendance in the Chamber of the responsible Minister. I am sure that he will apply what Hercule Poirot would describe as his “little grey cells” to seeking satisfaction on the matter.

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since 2010, my staff have worked in the lower basement—otherwise known as the dungeons—of the House of Commons. On a number of occasions since 2010, they have had valuables and computers stolen, and I have had my valuables stolen when they have been kept there. I have raised the matter with the authorities several times, but little has been done. There has been a recent theft in which valuables were stolen not just from my staff but from other staff, and those other staff have approached me. My staff have also come in in the morning to find somebody sleeping  under a desk and clothes just thrown in the middle of the floor. When I raised that with the authorities recently, one suggestion to deal with the issue was for staff to move into the offices of MPs.
It is unacceptable that my staff’s privacy should be invaded in that way and that there are constant thefts of valuable things, even when they are locked in drawers. We keep getting told to lock stuff in drawers, but things are already locked away. Something should be done about that, there should be proper security, and my staff and the others who work in the basement should be protected.

John Bercow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I have known him for probably 25 years, so I understand the sincerity as well as the seriousness of purpose with which he addresses the Chair. I note that a number of the matters have been reported to the police and—I say this is in no contentious spirit, but on the basis of advice that I received during his point of order—in respect of at least some of the matters of which it is said we did not have knowledge we need a proper and comprehensive report. Certainly, reference to Members sleeping in offices—

Strangers.

John Bercow: Strangers sleeping in offices—no further elaboration is required—is news to me. I had not known of that, and my understanding is that the authorities had not known of that. If there is a fuller picture to be provided, let it be provided, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I cannot have a kind of Second Reading debate on the matter here on the Floor of the House now. He has aired his concern and should add to it in writing if necessary, and I assure him that I will give it my attention and so will the head of the House service. I wish the right hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas. [Interruption.] And a happy Hanukkah, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) chunters from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] I am against chuntering, but I cannot stop it overnight.

IMMIGRATION DETENTION OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE AND OTHER VULNERABLE PEOPLE (SAFEGUARDS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Joan Ryan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about immigration detention safeguards for victims of torture and other vulnerable people, including those that have suffered from severe physical, psychological or sexual violence; and for connected purposes.
The treatment of victims of torture and other vulnerable people in our country’s immigration detention system is unacceptable. Long-standing Home Office policy has been that vulnerable people, including those with “independent evidence of torture”, should not be detained other than in exceptional circumstances, but in practice many are. We know from extensive medical evidence that immigration detention can seriously harm the mental health of detainees, particularly those who have previously suffered ill treatment.
The conditions of immigration detention can be appalling. Six court cases in recent years have reported inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. In 2017 alone, 11 people died in custody. Detainees are dying at a faster rate in immigration detention than we have seen before. When the then Home Secretary, now Prime Minister, commissioned the former prisons and probation ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, to conduct a review of the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention last year, his damning report found that safeguards for vulnerable people were inadequate, and that detention was used too often and for too long.
The Government’s response to Stephen Shaw’s recommendations has made a bad situation even worse. The Home Office’s flagship adults at risk policy, launched in September 2016, was intended to help to reduce the number of vulnerable people detained, and to cut the duration of detention, but according to the charity Medical Justice, the policy
“fundamentally weakens protections for vulnerable detainees leading to more rather than fewer being detained, for longer.”
This analysis was borne out in October 2017 by the High Court’s ruling in a case brought against the Home Office by Medical Justice and seven detainees. The Court found that the adults at risk policy unlawfully imprisoned hundreds of victims of torture as a result of the Home Office’s deeply regrettable decision to narrow the definition of torture so that it refers only to violence carried out by state actors and so excludes vulnerable survivors of non-state abuse. Given that the High Court ruled that the Home Office must review and reissue the adults at risk policy, this Bill provides a timely opportunity to ensure that we properly protect victims of torture and other vulnerable people.
My Bill would require all future policy to be inclusive, preventive and effective—inclusive by ensuring that the definition of torture used is broad enough to cover all those who are most likely to suffer from harm in detention, including all those who have suffered severe ill treatment at the hands of both state and non-state actors; preventive by protecting victims of torture and vulnerable people before harm occurs; and effective by ensuring that we   actually see the release of those unfit for detention, and that victims of torture and other vulnerable people are not detained for immigration purposes except in very exceptional circumstances.
I thank Freedom from Torture for all its advice and assistance with the Bill. At one of their events that I attended in September, I met Jonathan, a torture victim working with the campaign group Survivors Speak OUT. Jonathan provided harrowing testimony of the torture inflicted on him in his country of origin, and spoke of his experiences in fleeing to the UK, seeking asylum, and having medical evidence of his ill treatment initially disbelieved by the Home Office. While working on issues relating to human rights and the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, I have met other survivors of torture who suffered a similar fate when they arrived in the UK.
The Home Office’s decision to narrow the definition of torture in itsadults at risk policyis a prime example of the flaws of the system. That decision gave rise to a perverse situation whereby victims of sexual and physical abuse, trafficking, sexual exploitation and homophobic attacks were excluded from being recognised as torture victims by this Government, because the crimes perpetrated against them were carried out by non-state agents. The judge presiding in the High Court case ruled that the narrowing of the definition of torture lacked a “rational or evidence base”, and that the exclusion of
“certain individuals whose experiences of the infliction of severe pain and suffering may indeed make them particularly vulnerable to harm in detention.”
Torture is torture, whether carried out by a state or non-state actor.
In its initial 10 weeks of implementation, the adults at risk policy was applied incorrectly in almost 60% of 340 cases. One of the seven detainees who challenged the Home Office’s policy in the courts was Mr P. O. He was beaten, knifed and flogged in homophobic attacks in his country of origin. Fleeing to the UK, he was unlawfully detained, and his mental health deteriorated while he was imprisoned. He said that while he welcomed the High Court’s decision,
“it is still upsetting that the Home Office, who should protect people like me, rejected me and put me in detention which reminded me of the ordeal I suffered in my country of origin.”
It was not just the narrowing of the definition of torture that put Mr P. O. and others like him in such a terrible position. Medical Justice has said:
“For those detainees excluded by the narrower definition of torture, the policy required specific evidence that detention is likely to cause them harm—described as an ‘additional hurdle’ in the judgment. Not only does the policy lack effective mechanisms for obtaining such evidence, it also weakened already ineffective safeguards, encourages a ‘wait and see’ approach where vulnerable people were detained and allowed to deteriorate until avoidable harm has occurred and can be documented. As such, the policy effectively sanctioned harm to vulnerable detainees.”
Sadly, this situation could have been avoided if the Home Office had listened to and acted on concerns when the policy was written. Freedom from Torture was clear that the policy’s implementation
“could…weaken…standards protecting vulnerable people.”
It was correct, but its views, like those of many other organisations, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, were ignored.
Parliament was marginalised, too. Medical Justice noted:
“The policy was laid before parliament the day before summer recess and came into effect one week after recess with little opportunity for meaningful debate. Parliamentarians’ attention was not drawn to the intention to narrow the definition of torture”.
I question the Government’s commitment to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty if Members are not given adequate time to debate issues, such as the adults at risk policy, that are fundamental to our human rights and our common humanity.
The UK has a proud history of providing sanctuary to people fleeing violence and persecution. We have both moral and legal obligations to victims of torture and other vulnerable people who seek asylum. The UK must set an example as a country that respects and upholds human rights commitments. The torment faced by many individuals in the Government’s immigration detention system runs counter to this country’s proudest traditions.
It is the day before Parliament rises for the Christmas recess. It is the season of good will, and there can be no group more in need of our consideration, care and compassion than victims of torture and other vulnerable people who have come to this country seeking refuge. In the spirit of good will, I call on the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in addressing this issue. As Home Secretary she ordered the Shaw review, and the Home Office’s woefully poor response to his report happened on her Government’s watch. Now, as Prime Minister, she has the power to right this wrong. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Joan Ryan, Tom Brake, Paul Blomfield, Dr Lisa Cameron, Yvette Cooper, Caroline Lucas, Siobhain McDonagh, Dr Matthew Offord, Jim Shannon, Gareth Thomas, Tom Tugendhat and Catherine West present the Bill.
Joan Ryan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November 2018, and to be printed (Bill 146).

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) BILL

[8th Allocated Day]

[Relevant document: First Report of the Exiting the European Union Committee, European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, HC 373]
Further considered in Committee
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
New Clause 21

Plain English summary of retained direct  EU legislation

“HM Government shall ensure that the publication of copies of retained direct EU legislation as set out in the provisions of section 13 and schedule 5 is accompanied wherever possible by a summarising explanatory document setting out in terms that are readily understandable the purpose and effect of that retained direct EU legislation.”—(Mr Leslie.)
This new clause would require Ministers to publish copies of retained direct EU legislation accompanied by ‘plain English’ and readily understandable summarising explanatory documents.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Chris Leslie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause13,page9,line9,at end insert—
‘(3) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) make provision enabling or requiring judicial notice to be taken of a relevant matter, or
(b) provide for the admissibility in any legal proceedings of specified evidence of—
(i) a relevant matter, or
(ii) instruments or documents issued by or in the custody of an EU entity.”
Clause 13 stand part.
Amendment 348, in schedule5,page36,line9,at end insert—
“(c) any impact assessment conducted by Her Majesty’s Government that in any way concerns the economic and financial impact of in anyway altering, modifying or abolishing any relevant instrument.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish its economic impact assessments of the policy options for withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 76, in schedule5,page37,leave out paragraph 4.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Chris Leslie: Merry Christmas to you, Dame Rosie, and to all hon. and right hon. Members.
Under the peculiar vagaries of the Government’s programme motion, we have ended up with a peculiar day 8 in Committee, with a potential four-hour chunk to debate amendments to schedule 5, which is quite a narrow area of concern—the publication of retained EU legislation and rules of evidence—and, in theory,  only four hours in the second half to debate the massive number of remaining amendments. The Committee will understand why I probably do not want to spend too much time on this first group, because I suspect a large number of hon. Members will want to speak on the second group.
Nevertheless, I will have a crack at new clause 21 because it is always worth probing the Government on every part of a Bill. This new clause would ensure that, when Her Majesty’s Government publish EU retained legislation, they accompany it with a summarising explanatory document setting out, in terms that are readily understandable, its purpose and effect.
This might seem an obvious point, and someone might say, “Of course Ministers intend to do this. Surely, if we have all the legal gobbledegook we normally get in statute and in primary and secondary legislation, there will be a summary not just for Members of Parliament but for the public to read and understand so they know what they are talking about.” But that practice has only been in effect for a small number of years and, although it started with the good intention of providing explanatory statements and explanatory notes, it has slipped back a bit from the original intention. When hon. Members pick up a dense and complex proposal, they will often find that the explanatory notes basically say the same thing, perhaps with a few dots and commas changed here and there, and feel that the proposal is as impenetrable as it ever was.
The point is that clarity is needed if we are to transfer a great set of EU legislation into UK law. Such clarity is an important principle that Parliament should underline and establish, which is what new clause 21 seeks to do. More than that, when we legislate we should make it clear not just for the lawyers but for everyone so that all our constituents know and understand the consequences of the laws we are putting in place.
Such clarity was not always evident in the referendum campaign in the run-up to June 2016. In fact, many would still say that there was a lot of obfuscation and opacity, and that the consequences of Brexit were not clear at all. In my view, as much clarity and plain English as possible should be obtainable.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Leslie: Before I give way, I have to confess that I am a serial offender when it comes to not necessarily speaking in plain and clear terms, so I am not pretending in any way to be the world’s greatest simple communicator on such things. I am sure I will transgress this afternoon.

Mike Gapes: Another advantage of new clause 21 is that it would enable the Government to give us a clear explanation and perhaps say that “regulatory alignment” and “regulatory convergence” mean the same thing.

Chris Leslie: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. He has spotted that the famous paragraph 49 of the phase 1 agreement between the negotiators on the EU side and the negotiators on the UK side talks about maintaining regulatory alignment, which is a phrase that manages to span all sorts of different interpretations. The EU and Republic of Ireland side believes “full alignment” to mean full alignment and that we will  essentially have the same arrangements as we have now. But when the Prime Minister returned to the House of Commons, she sort of said, “Oh, no, it is a very narrow meaning in the terms set out in particular paragraphs of the Belfast agreement.” It is amazing how words can mean one thing to one listener and another thing to an entirely different listener.

John Redwood: I agree that clarity is usually an admirable virtue, but if the thing the Government are trying to describe is not very clear in itself—perhaps because it is very complicated and impossible to make clear, or perhaps because it is deliberately obfuscating—what happens then? We cannot have a dishonest account of what a complex clause is doing.

Chris Leslie: We should not assume that those watching our proceedings, or reading them in Hansard, entirely trust the Government or Members of Parliament simply to know and understand what is happening. People outside have a right to know, and of course we expect businesses and members of the public to interpret the legislation we pass.
This is a signal moment, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) rightly pointed out on, I think, day 2 in Committee that we are about to copy and paste a phenomenal body of legislation, which has accrued over decades, from the EU corpus of law into the British legal context. That requires us to pause for a moment to think about whether we are properly articulating to our constituents and others what exactly is happening in this process.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman refers to trust in the Government. Does he think our constituents will be reassured by the Prime Minister’s confirmation on Monday that the Cabinet’s discussions on our future trade deals do not involve the Cabinet having any assessment of the impact of different potential models?

Chris Leslie: Governments would normally be expected to have information and facts, with evidence being collected and presented and with an assessment made based on information that has been analysed and digested in a professional way, but it appears that, although we were told they exist, the impact assessments do not actually exist but are sectoral analyses. What is the difference between an impact assessment and a sectoral analysis? Well, we have been discussing that for quite some time.
Returning to EU retained legislation, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield rightly pointed out that we have lived with important legal understandings, such as on equalities law and environmental law, for a number of decades. Those understandings have been tenets of our expectations of the civilised society in which we live. Of course, they will now be transferred from European law into UK law. If they had originated in this House, they would have been enacted in primary legislation and any changes would have had to be made through primary legislation. But the Government’s proposal is to take this new category of EU retained law and bring it into UK law, and it will not have the same status as primary legislation. In many ways, it will be repealable or amendable, often by secondary legislation—by statutory  instrument. This is not a point about Brexit; it is about the process of transposition. It is important that the public know what is going on when we are doing this. If a transfer is taking place, information should be set out in the explanatory notes, not just about the technical details, but about the weight that those legal rights will have once they come back into UK law.
There are a number of other aspects to this—

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and relevant point, although it is of course true that all this legislation came in via secondary legislation in the first place and Parliament will have considerably more control over the secondary legislation that amends it than we currently have over the method that created it. I would imagine, as I am sure he does and the Government do, that Acts of Parliament will become more important, particularly if we want to make sure that this is not challengeable in the courts, as secondary legislation is much more vulnerable to challenge through the courts than primary legislation.

Chris Leslie: Yes. Although we disagree on many things, I think we can agree that if we are going to do this exercise, it needs to be done thoroughly and robustly, making sure that the intent of Parliament and the laws we are transposing are robust enough to withstand the test of time. Having explanatory statements to accompany those is an important development that has helped us in our legislative process recently. If we are going to have a sifting committee—it is not really a sifting committee; the procedures committee will be doing this—looking through all these statutory instruments and picking out which ones it thinks should not be passed through the negative procedure, this explanatory process ought to be in place to help hon. Members figure out which of these hundreds or even thousands of aspects of legislation are important enough to flag up to hon. Members more widely. That is a small point but it needs making. Other issues arise relating to “tertiary” legislation and the powers the Bill is giving to agencies and regulators to make, or to amend or remedy, laws. Again, I would like these things to be flagged up in plain English, wherever possible, so that parliamentarians can know about them. In essence, new clause 21 is about transparency, clarity and shining a light on this complicated bandwidth of activity that is about to hit all hon. Members, and that is important.
The only other point I wanted to make on this group—

Craig Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this place for far longer than I have. We have lived through 40-odd years of what he is now describing as “dense and complex” legislation which applies to the UK, but only at this stage does he seem to be concerned about what that legislation really means. Why has he not been so similarly vexed and exercised these past 40 years?

Chris Leslie: I have been vexed and exercised for quite a long part of the past 40 years, but that is my problem. The hon. Gentleman should know that as we go forward we are creating a new type of legislation. It is true that  many of the European directives and regulations have been adopted over the years in different ways, but we are now importing this great body of EU retained law. It is going to affect him and his constituents, as well as my constituents. The first point to make is: can we understand what it is? That provides a useful opportunity in this exercise—

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may agree with me that if there are deficiencies in the way EU law has been imported into our law, the last thing we want to do is to perpetuate them by keeping the uncertainties after we have gone. Yet schedule 5 raises a number of uncertainties, which this House would do well to address.

Chris Leslie: We are doing our duty by at least trying to comb over these issues now.
I wish to commend the Labour Front-Bench team on their amendment 348, which seeks to ensure that impact assessments are made properly and thoroughly before we take many of the decisions in this whole Brexit process. We already know enough about what has happened with the Brexit Secretary promising impact assessments and their turning out to be sectoral analyses. Many of us will have gone to the reading room and looked at the hastily written 50-odd documents, which would be good if someone was writing a master’s degree dissertation on the aviation sector—they are full facts and information—but do not really provide much more analysis than people can already get off Google.
Where we did get an insight, although it may have been a slip of the tongue, was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared before the Treasury Committee on 6 December and said that he has
“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the European Union and the United Kingdom”
and that
“it informs…our negotiating position”.
So obviously there does exist within government some level of impact assessment and analysis that has not yet been placed in the public domain. It might be that the Brexit Committee wishes to explore that further or that the Treasury Committee wishes to do so, but it is important that we know whether this is simply a reference to the pre-referendum work that was done under the former Chancellor George Osborne or whether further assessments have taken place, independently undertaken by the Treasury. We need to know what analysis the different Departments have undertaken and what sort of modelling on the different sectors of our economy has been done.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Government produce assessments, whether or not they are “sectoral assessments”, on issues that are a lot more trivial than such an important thing befalling our country as Brexit? It is therefore imperative that we have detailed assessments on how this will affect our country.

Chris Leslie: Yes. That again gets to this question: are we accidentally bumbling our way through, where nobody has thought about doing an assessment, or, worse, is this work being done but then hidden, covered up and  held back from Members of Parliament and from the public at large? I suspect that any serious analysis worth its salt will show that there are some damning consequences of exiting the single market and customs union, and I think that needs to be shared with the wider public.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Brexit Secretary was rather lucky when he appeared before the Select Committee, because having agreed to produce papers, he got out of it by sticking to a narrow definition of “impact assessment”? It was semantics that enabled him to get away with just producing the new documents, which he had hastily produced in the past few weeks, containing bland descriptions of where we are. As the originals are important documents, as these questions have been looked at and as we were told a summary had been sent to the Prime Minister, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House’s motion meant that whatever documents the Government had that bore on the subject, they should have been produced? The Brexit Secretary should not have been allowed to get away with saying, “Strictly speaking, they’re not impact assessments.”

Chris Leslie: I do agree with that. We should not just skim over this question. These are some of the most profound decisions that Parliament will make for a generation and, if we are going to do our jobs correctly as Members of Parliament, having the right facts, getting the evidence, assembling the analysis, making sure we can weigh up the pros and cons of all these matters, and getting readily understandable, plain English explanatory statements of what is actually being proposed are prerequisites. They should be there to make us do our jobs properly.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Chris Leslie: I will give way one last time, and then I will conclude.

Desmond Swayne: How does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the assessments are going to be any less divisive than the issue that we are seeking to assess? The assessments are based on assumptions, and we profoundly disagree about the assumptions.

Chris Leslie: That is getting us into this question about experts again and whether there is such a thing as a fact or whether everything in this world is an opinion. It is important to make sure that if there are facts and if we can prove cause and effect—for example, if we know that the introduction of inspections or a hard border is going to slow down lorries going through a particular port—we can, QED, prove that there is going to be a particular consequence for the economy. That sort of analysis ought to be shared with the wider world.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Chris Leslie: I did say I was trying to finish, but my hon. Friend tempts me.

Stephen Doughty: I wanted to give my hon. Friend an example before he concludes. Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that the UK would make “significant savings” as a result of our leaving the EU, but I have  asked questions and Treasury Ministers have not been able to explain what those savings will be or to put a figure on them. Yet Financial Times analysis suggests that we will lose £350 million per week, which contrasts with what was on the side of that red bus.

Chris Leslie: That is right. That Financial Times analysis was worth sharing and should be shared, but we should not rely on journalism alone to do the job. We have a professional civil service; let us not gag it or try to lock it under the stairs somewhere. We should let that expertise come out so that we can all see and hear it.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Chris Leslie: Members are enjoying new clause 21 so much! I thought it was a simple one.

Iain Duncan Smith: I only want to help the hon. Gentleman. Does he think it would have been a lot easier had the Exiting the European Union Committee asked the Secretary of State for the impact opinions that he may well have had?

Chris Leslie: Again, when is an assessment an opinion? In some ways, it diminishes and slightly denigrates the professionalism of our civil service to suggest that its output is merely conjecture or opinion. There are some things in this world that are facts, from which we can draw conclusions and which any rational observer would not really question.

Madeleine Moon: rose—

Chris Leslie: I give way for the final time.

Madeleine Moon: May I read my hon. Friend the steel sector view? It says:
“it will be a lengthy and potentially very costly process for UK manufacturers to break into new markets…Returns on sales to new markets will frequently be poorer than from existing contracts with customers in neighbouring countries.”
Is not that something that the British people need to know?

Chris Leslie: That is the level of analysis and assessment that deserves to be shared and that was not available to the public prior to the referendum. It should not be dismissed but made more widely available. Members, and beyond them voters, can weigh up the different opinions. Some Members might rubbish representatives of the steel sector and say, “What do they know? I know better,” but we can weigh these things up and bring them into balance. We have the opportunity to debate transparency. Let us allow sunlight to flood over this issue and make sure that we are better informed going forward than we were before the referendum.

Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate in the Committee’s consideration of schedule 5 and clause 13, although the reality is that the clause says very little and the schedule says a great deal.
As we have just heard, part 1 of schedule 5 provides for the publication of retained direct EU legislation  by the Queen’s printer, which should be completely  uncontroversial because its purpose is to promote transparency and access so that people in the United Kingdom can know what the law is. That is not some slight matter. One of the points that has been gently canvassed in the debate so far is the extent to which EU law may have created, in the way it has been brought into UK law, a degree of uncertainty as to what it is, in which case that is the last thing we should retain when we carry out this retention of the law. One of the central principles of the rule of law is that the law must be
“accessible…intelligible, clear and predictable”.
That is one of Lord Bingham’s principles of the rule of law, and it should matter to the House very much with respect to how it legislates. People need to be able to understand what activity is prohibited and therefore discouraged, and what their rights are so that they are able to claim whatever rights they have.
The interesting thing about part 1 of schedule 5 is that paragraph 2 empowers Ministers to make exceptions to the duty to publish retained direct EU legislation by
“giving a direction to the Queen’s printer specifying the instrument or category of instruments that are excepted.”
There appear to be no limitations on that power and no guidance on when such instruction might or might not be appropriate. My first question to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, and particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, is: what is the Government’s intention in respect of that exception? Why is it there—we need to understand why it has been included in the Bill—and how will it be used in practice? It seems to me that it is desirable that the entirety of retained direct EU legislation should be made available through the Queen’s printer, so what is the intention as to the circumstances in which a Minister might remove himself from the duty and give a different direction? There is, perhaps slightly to my regret, no amendment to address that question—had I focused on it slightly better at an earlier stage and not been diverted by other matters, I might have tried to tease it out by tabling an amendment—but as we are also debating whether the clause and schedule should stand part of the Bill, it is important that we give the matter some consideration. Indeed, it ties in exactly with what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said in introducing new clause 21, which is on exactly the same principle or philosophical issue of providing certainty.
My second question is about part 2 of schedule 5, which provides for Ministers by regulations to enable or require judicial notice to be taken of retained EU law or EU law. There are no limitations whatsoever on this delegated legislative power to enable or require judicial notice to be taken and, as far as I can see, nor are there any provisions to require that a Minister can make such regulations only under certain circumstances—for example, regulatory harmonisation might be a legitimate reason for making such regulations. This is a classic Henry VIII power, as paragraph 4(3) provides total Henry VIII powers, and is only limited, under paragraph 4(4), to primary legislation made or passed before the end of the Session in which this Bill is passed.
All that takes me back to an interesting debate the Committee had on previous day—which one has rather faded out of my memory—in which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)  and I raised our continuing concerns about the judiciary having a lack of clarity about how they were supposed to interpret and apply retained EU law. Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale have expressed concern that the Bill is insufficiently clear about how retained EU law should be interpreted by the courts post exit. Lord Neuberger in particular was concerned by the prospect of the courts having to determine questions of regulatory harmonisation against divergence between UK and EU law—an essentially political topic, with possible economic consequences to the interpretation. As it happens, regulations made under part 2 of schedule 5 might address the judiciary’s anxiety about the need for better guidance on retained EU law, but what troubles me is that this provision again subtly sidelines Parliament from any role in providing guidance, as it is a matter of Executive discretion.
I must say to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, and to my other colleagues on the Treasury Bench, that I do understand the Government’s difficulties. The whole Bill is about an accretion of power to a Government who do not really know how they are going to have to use that power and are fearful that something will come up that will require them to act swiftly, and who therefore think that they have to maximise the tools at their disposal.
Forgive my repeating this—I think that the Bill has been quite well improved as it has gone through the House and, indeed, some of the assurances that have been given will lead to further improvements, I have no doubt, on Report—but it was this sort of thing that made me describe the Bill as a monstrosity on Second Reading. It is so contrary to the normal way in which one would expect to legislate for Parliament both to grant the powers that a Government need, including, where necessary, powers of secondary legislation, and at the same time to make sure that these cannot run out of control. On the plain face of the Bill, this is really one of the immense Henry VIII powers. The Government have decided to resolve this issue by taking a very big sledgehammer to the normal structures.

Anna Soubry: During last Wednesday’s debate, I specifically asked whether the Bill was first drafted before the June general election. My view—I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend shares it—is that this Bill was all about delivering a quick and hard Brexit, and the reason for these extraordinary powers is that they were needed by Ministers to execute that process in quite a short period of time. Does he think that there is any merit in that?

Dominic Grieve: I think I might be a little kinder to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, because it seems to me that at the time the Bill came into being, the Government still thought that it was all that was required to take us out of the EU. I think that that is where its genesis and origin lie. In actual fact, one of the supreme ironies is that for all the heat that has been generated—we have carried out some proper scrutiny as well, but certainly, last Wednesday, there was a lot of heat—much of what we are doing here might well turn out in practice to be completely academic. In fairness to the Government, once they were landed with this immense problem, I am not sure that they were wrong to proceed in this way, but it just so happens that that is where we are going to  end up. However, that is not a reason why we should not pay attention to the powers that the Government are seeking to take—we do have to pay attention to them.

John Redwood: rose—

Dominic Grieve: I will give way to my right hon. Friend in just a second, because I do not wish to speak for very much longer.
For that reason, I do hope that a bit of focus can placed on schedule 5. I do not have any amendments tabled. I am not about to create difficulties for the Government or to divide the House on schedule 5, but I will, if I may, just ask a question as we approach Report, because I cannot believe that this will not be looked at in the House of Lords. It would be quite nice for the Christmas period to be used for quiet reflection on just how wide these powers are and whether, yet again, the Government might, on reflection, be able to circumscribe them a little bit, so that they appear to be slightly less stark in terms of the power grab that they imply. That is quite apart from the fact, to come back to my first point, that the exception in paragraph 2 giving Ministers the power not to print strikes me as very, very odd.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Henry VIII powers, as he calls them, in the Bill are much more modest than the Henry VIII powers in the European Communities Act 1972 that it replaces? This is about only transferring existing law into UK law. Where and when we wish to amend, improve or repeal, that will require a full parliamentary process, which it did not need when it came from Europe.

Dominic Grieve: I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. Of course, I am mindful of it—it has been raised on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill—but the system that we had to follow as a result of our EU membership implied that that law, having been agreed by the Council of Ministers and translated into directives, had direct effect in this country and was then applied, not usually through primary legislation but by means of secondary legislation, or indeed directly sometimes. I understand all that, but it does not provide a justification for taking unnecessary powers in trying to effect our departure.
As I said, there is something a bit odd about schedule 5. There must be legal certainty, so why are the Government taking for themselves a power to create legal uncertainty if they so wish? Let us be clear about this: if guidance is a matter of Executive discretion, it is a very unusual state of affairs indeed. There is guidance and guidance. There may be general guidance that Parliament might give as to how it intends retained EU law to be treated. I do not have difficulty with that. Indeed, I think that it may be something that we will have to do. As we have discussed—my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and I were in agreement about this—we think that Parliament might want to explain how it wishes this matter to be approached generally. That, if I may say, is a rather different thing from saying that Ministers can suddenly wake up one morning and decide, “I want the law to be interpreted in a different way on some specific matter, and I am going to lay a statutory instrument  before Parliament that will enable me to do that.” It is a very unusual thing to do, and the Government must be in a position to justify it. It slightly troubles me that the law can be tinkered around with in this form. Obviously, Parliament can decide what it likes about changing law. Occasionally, we change laws by statutory instrument, through regulatory change, but it is not something that we should do lightly.

Bernard Jenkin: Clause 13 is confined to the publication and rules of evidence. The schedule itself is about publishing what is retained direct EU legislation. Can my right hon. and learned Friend describe to me what latitude the Government would have that could do so much damage, or be so capricious, within the powers of the Bill, and can he give an example of what would be so damaging and outrageous?

Dominic Grieve: As I have explained, this is a Henry VIII power, so within the period in which this power is operational—this is on my reading, but perhaps my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will correct me—a Minister of the Crown may, by regulation, essentially change the way in which retained EU law is handled by requiring
“judicial notice to be taken of a relevant matter, or…provide for the admissibility in any legal proceedings of specified evidence of…a relevant matter”.
That is a very extensive power. Effectively, it gives a power to rewrite how legislation should be interpreted.

Bernard Jenkin: Give us an example.

Dominic Grieve: The examples could be endless—[Interruption.] Well, if there is an established rule by which, for example, EU law is currently being applied, a Minister could say that, in future, that should be disapplied because notice should not be taken of its previous application.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not correct to compare the direct application of EU law with Henry VIII powers? When EU law is made, we all sit around the table. EU law is not other people’s law but our law. We sit at the table when EU law is being made, so it is an incorrect comparison.

Dominic Grieve: I do actually agree with the hon. Lady and, I am afraid, disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Of course, membership of the EU implies a pooling of sovereignty, but the decision-making process by which law has been created in the EU is one that is done not by faceless bureaucrats, but by the Council of Ministers. There is absolutely no doubt about that at all—

Bernard Jenkin: In secret.

Dominic Grieve: I do not wish to be dragged off into some new polemical argument. My hon. Friend says in secret, but, if I may say, we are signed up to hundreds of treaties other than that with the EU in which we pool our sovereignty to come to common positions with our fellow treaty makers.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Dominic Grieve: I think that I am about to take up much more time than I wanted to. I give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

Sylvia Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I agree entirely with his eloquent points about the power that schedule 5 transfers to Ministers of the Crown. Will he spend a moment reflecting on the definition of a Minister of the Crown that is set out in clause 14? The definition comprises not just Ministers, but
“also includes the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs”.
The power in schedule 5 is being given to a very broad range of individuals.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady is right. [Interruption.] Next to me, from a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is saying, “It’ll only be used for technical matters.” Indeed—let us be clear about this—I strongly suspect that that is the intention, but this is a very extensive power and, as it is worded, it goes way beyond technical amendments. As we are in Committee, it seems perfectly proper for me, as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament—it does not matter which side of the Chamber I am sitting on—to ask my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to explain to the Committee how the power will be used. I gently say to my hon. Friends that the problem with this debate is that the heat that starts to come off very quickly goes into issues of principle about what has been going on over the past 50 years. Could we just gently come back to focus on the issue at hand?

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Dominic Grieve: As much as I would like to give way to my right hon. Friend, I am actually now going to sit down.

Iain Duncan Smith: Just for a second.

Dominic Grieve: All right, I will give way.

Iain Duncan Smith: I want to take up my right hon. and learned Friend on one small point. After agreeing with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and justifying the past 40 years by saying that decisions were agreed by Ministers sitting together to make law, he knocked down his own argument as to why he cannot support what Ministers are doing because, of course, they would use this power as Ministers who have been elected to implement change and make law. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot have it both ways. Either he thinks that the last 40 years were wrong, which is why one defends the idea of change, as he did originally; or he thinks that the last 40 years were fine, in which case there is no attack on this particular aspect of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I am afraid that I disagree totally with my right hon. Friend. In the last 40 years, we decided to pool sovereignty as a matter of national interest and necessity. This is a totally different issue; it is about our domestic law. When it comes to matters of domestic   law, this House does not have the necessary constraint, which is the very reason why I have asked these questions. I am quite confident that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will be able to provide some cogent answers to the points I have raised.

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: All right, but this is the last one.

Mike Gapes: Is there not also another difference, which is that decisions within the European Union are not just taken by meetings of the Council of Ministers, as there is a co-decision process that involves elected Members of the European Parliament representing all 28 member states?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to get dragged into revisiting the way in which the European Union works. The European Union has many flaws, and there are many issues on which I have seen fit to criticise it during my years in the House—including, sometimes, the way it goes about its business. Having said that, this constant conflation of the two issues when we are carrying out scrutiny of what will be domestic legislation is, in my view, not helpful. We need to focus on what we are doing. If we do, we will come up with the right answers.

Paul Blomfield: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who made a characteristically thoughtful and reasonable contribution. It is always remarkable to see how such thoughtfulness and reasonableness can be so provocative to some Government Members.
I wish to speak to amendments 348 and 349 in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope, in doing so, to build on the agreement across the Committee that was evident last Wednesday, when we made the decision that Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal.

Rosie Winterton: Just for clarification, amendment 348 is in the first group of amendments and amendment 349 is in the next group.

Paul Blomfield: Thank you for that clarification, Dame Rosie, although I think that the points that I am making stand regardless.
Following on from the decision last Wednesday, let us be clear that an overwhelming majority of Members respect the result of the referendum, as was reflected in the vote on article 50, but there is also a clear majority who reject the deep rupture with our friends and partners in the EU 27 that is advocated by some of the more extreme Brexiteers. In the months ahead, that clear majority needs to find its voice. Most Members—many more than reflected in last Wednesday’s vote—recognise that our future lies in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that was provocative to some Government Members. The Prime Minister describes that relationship as a “deep and special partnership”. It is a relationship based on  maintaining common EU standards and regulations necessary for our future trading relationship, and it is vital in protecting jobs and the economy.
It is also a majority of the House who recognise that the referendum was a close vote—not the unprecedented mandate that some have suggested. Yes, 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016. That is roughly the same number as voted to remain in 1975, although that represented 67% of voters in 1975. It was a clear decision, but a close vote, and one that we should be implementing in a way that unites the country, not in a way that drives a further wedge between the 52% and the 48%.

Richard Graham: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be trying to bring people together, rather than separating them. In that context, will he explain his definition of Brexiteer? He used the word earlier in the phrase “more extreme Brexiteers”. In his definition, is every Member who voted for article 50—I think that five sixths of the House did so—characterised as a Brexiteer?

Paul Blomfield: Clearly not. Like hon. Members across the House, including the overwhelming majority of the Opposition, I campaigned to remain in the European Union because I thought it was right thing to do economically and politically for our country and our continent. But I voted for article 50. That clearly does not characterise me as an extreme Brexiteer. Since I was elected in 2010, it has startled me that a small number of Members seem to define their politics by their ambition to leave the European Union at any cost and at any price; that is what I would describe as extreme.

Richard Graham: Again, just for clarification, Members who voted for article 50 are not Brexiteers, but presumably those who did not vote for article 50 are also not Brexiteers. Therefore, none of us is a Brexiteer; or are we actually all Brexiteers and just trying to resolve the issue?

Paul Blomfield: I am not really sure where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go with that argument. My point is that an overwhelming majority in the House wish to see us implement the decision of 2016 sensibly, and in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU 27. There are others—a small number, whose voices I expect to hear shortly—who would see us leave at any cost, and I regret that.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend says a number of extreme Brexiteers in this House want to leave at any cost. Does he accept that a small number of Members will do anything—anything—to stop the United Kingdom carrying out the wishes of the British people to leave the European Union?

Paul Blomfield: No, I do not, and it is unfortunate that some people have been characterised in that way, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others were by some of their colleagues last week. If I can now make some progress—

Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: Well, while we are talking about extreme voices, I am happy to give way.

Bernard Jenkin: There are right hon. and hon. Members who say they want to honour the result of the referendum, but who actually want the European Union to carry on controlling our laws. I call them Brexinos—people who want Brexit in name only. There may well be a majority of them in this House, but that would not be respecting the result of the referendum, would it?

Paul Blomfield: The hon. Gentleman is a good example of those who see conspiracy in any corner. I note the article he wrote in The Guardian on 8 October under  the title “It’s a sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury”. He went on to say:
“There is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging, but the EU itself has so far demonstrated it wants to make it so…it has co-opted the CBI…the City and…the Treasury to assist.”
Well, I think that the majority of Members take a more rational view.
The decision taken in 2016 was not a mandate for driving over a cliff edge with no deal or for having no transitional arrangement in place. It was not a vote for leaving all the agencies and partnerships from which we have benefited over the years and could continue to benefit or for turning our back on the single market, walking away from the customs union or—I say this with an eye on the contribution made in the last debate by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is paying more attention to his phone than to the debate—turning our back on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Iain Duncan Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman let me intervene?

Paul Blomfield: I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would.

Iain Duncan Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman not guilty himself, however, of attempting to interpret what the vote was for? On the ballot paper was the issue of whether to leave; the rest is down to negotiation. So, surely, his position is as absurd as that of anyone who says they know these things. He does not know. He knows only one thing: that the British people voted to leave. The rest is for negotiation.

Paul Blomfield: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The rest is indeed down to negotiation, and it is down to this Parliament to make the final decisions.
In the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution to, I think, the debate on day one, he sought to interpret the mandate by saying that the primary reason, from the research he had done, for leave voters voting as they did was their antipathy to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I was quite surprised by that, because I talked to hundreds of people on the doorstep who told me they were voting to leave, and the jurisdiction of the CJEU was not one of the regular issues raised.
Therefore, after day one, I took the time to look at the right hon. Gentleman’s research, which was carried out in partnership with the Foreign Secretary’s and the  Environment Secretary’s favourite think-tank, the Legatum Institute. I located the report, and I read it with interest. Unusually, it did not include data on the full results, only the final weighted results, but the interesting thing was the question itself. Whereas the other choices were value-neutral—the economy, immigration, national security or the NHS— one option was
“The ability for Britain to make its own laws”—
a leading question if ever I heard one. [Interruption.] If the question had been “Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice”, the right hon. Gentleman may well have found a different answer. Other research, with larger samples—

Iain Duncan Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can skip that and go to the point that was in that pamphlet, which made it clear that when people were asked what their primary reason was for voting to leave, it was “Take back control”—control of our laws, our borders and our money. He can debate that as much as he likes, but the public knew about that when they voted.

Paul Blomfield: rose—

Wera Hobhouse: Are we not in a discussion about who interprets what? Is it not therefore time that we asked the people: what did they mean?

Paul Blomfield: We will come to that point in the second half of our debate today, and I will take the opportunity to comment on it then. However, to answer the right hon. Gentleman, the point I was making was that he sought to interpret the leave vote in a way that, on the basis of the research he cited, was flawed.
Analysis he might look at of nearly 3,000 British people, which was conducted by the NatCen Social Research, found that concerns about immigration were the driving factor for 75% of leave voters, which should not surprise him, because that was something he put very much at the centre of his arguments during the leave campaign.
If we know what the vote was not, let us remind ourselves what it was: it was simply a vote to leave the European Union. The campaign was hugely divisive. I spoke at dozens of meetings during the campaign, and the very last question of the very last meeting, in a local church, was, “How are you going to put our divided country back together again after all this?” Sadly, that question is as relevant now as it was then, as some of the abuse faced by Conservative Members after the vote last week demonstrated.
Meeting that challenge is a responsibility for us all, and it starts with us recognising that the majority in this House speaks for the country in wanting a sensible approach to Brexit. Instead of fuelling division, the Government should reach out and seek to build on that consensus for the next phase of the negotiations, in a way that will bring people together.
Last week’s drama should have been unnecessary. We should have been able to readily agree on the sovereignty of Parliament and on a meaningful final vote for this place. Labour amendments 348 and 349—when we come to it—which seek the publication of any impact  assessment conducted by the Government, should be as uncontroversial as the idea that Parliament should have a say.
Clearly, events have moved on since these amendments were tabled, but real issues do remain. We obviously brought a motion on the issue to the House on 1 November, asking that impact assessments should be passed to the Exiting the European Union Committee. We did that for the same reason that the House voted last week: we want proper transparency and accountability in this process, but that is not what we got.
The Government neither amended nor opposed our motion, but they hoped to sidestep it. When Mr Speaker confirmed it was binding—

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Dame Rosie. My understanding of the advice you gave earlier is that amendment 348, which is about impact assessments, is not being discussed at this moment. I think that you told us that this debate is supposed to be about new clause 21, which is about clear English. That is why I asked the question about the shadow Minister’s definition of the word “Brexiteer”. However, I have not heard anything about new clause 21, and I think that you said we are going to take amendment 348 later.

Rosie Winterton: No, I think the hon. Gentleman misheard. I actually said that amendment 349 was in the second set and that amendment 348 is in this set, as is clause 13 stand part and schedule 5—hence why the debate is a little wider than the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.

Paul Blomfield: Thank you, Dame Rosie.
The point I was making was that when Mr Speaker confirmed that our motion was binding and, indeed, that the Government should comply urgently, they clearly found themselves in a bit of a fix. Three weeks later, they finally produced something, although it was not what we voted for. I was really keen to read the papers that had been described by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union as offering “excruciating detail” on the impact of the various options we faced as a country when leaving. So I, like a number of other Members, booked my slot for the DExEU reading room at the earliest opportunity.
On 5 December, I turned up at 100 Parliament Street and reported to reception. I was accompanied, closely, to the room. When I arrived, I was required to hand over my mobile phone. Having been sat at the table, two lever-arch files were brought to me from a locked cabinet, and as I read them I was supervised by two civil servants. So what did I find? Nothing that could not have been found in a reasonable internet search—which is presumably what the civil servants had been doing over the preceding three weeks in order to prepare them.

Kevin Brennan: I went through the exact same experience. I visited the Cabinet Office and gave in my mobile phone, and made my written notes on the various tables in the section I was interested in. Afterwards, I found that I was given the identical information by submitting written parliamentary questions —so why all the secrecy?

Paul Blomfield: My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Why all the secrecy for what was available in that room, because there was certainly no assessment—or analysis, if we are playing with words—of the impact of the policy choices facing the Government and the country?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The education section starts by saying, “We will not touch on the effects on Horizon 2020 or Erasmus.” It does not touch at all on non-higher education. There is no impact assessment on summer schools or language teaching in this country. Clearly, the work was not really done even with an internet search.

Paul Blomfield: We are probably straying on to dangerous territory if we start talking about the content, such are the rules surrounding the documents until such time as they are made public, but those of us who have been there know that they provide no analysis and no impact assessment. So it was no surprise when the Secretary of State told the Brexit Committee last Wednesday that the Government had undertaken “no quantitative assessment” of the impact of leaving the customs union—just one of the policy choices we face. Yet just a few hours later, in a room just a few yards away, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that the Government had
“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the EU and the UK, potential alternative arrangements and agreements that might be made.”
The Chancellor’s answer was developed in oral questions last Thursday by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is in his place. He said:
“Our sectoral analysis is made up of a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses examining activity across sectors, regulatory and trade frameworks and the views of stakeholders.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 588.]
Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State had said that no quantitative assessment has been undertaken on the impact of leaving the customs union. So in this
“qualitative and quantitative analysis of regulatory and trade frameworks”
have the Government for some reason exempted the customs union?

Tom Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman confused, as I am, about the reasons why the Government seem to have this problem—I do not know whether it is an ideological objection—with conducting impact assessments? We heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that Ministers are sitting down to discuss our future trading relationship with the European Union without having in front of them any impact assessments on what the different economic impacts of these models might be. How irresponsible is that?

Paul Blomfield: The worry is that either they are not conducting them or they are conducting them and not sharing them in the way that was required.

Mike Gapes: Could not there be another, far more simple, explanation—that the Secretary of State is heading a Department that should be renamed “the Department for Winging It”?

Paul Blomfield: That is probably the sort of phrase that the Secretary of State might use on some occasions.
On 2 February 2017, the Secretary of State told the House:
“We continue to analyse the impact of our exit across the breadth of the UK economy, covering more than 50 sectors—I think it was 58 at the last count—to shape our negotiating position.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1218.]
Was he right? Or was the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) right when he said recently that the Secretary of State
“has never actually referred to impact assessments… These were a fiction of the media and the Labour party”?
If the Government are playing with semantics, claiming that assessments of impact and impact assessments are not the same thing, they should be aware that they are at serious risk of misleading the House. Even more worryingly, have they, as we have heard suggested, actually not undertaken this work at all? Are they hiding these assessments in semantics—hiding them from the House and from the Select Committee—or do they not even have any work to hide?
We will not press the amendment to a vote. It would, after all, replicate the vote on the decision that the House took on 1 November—we have seen how the Government responded to that—but that should not be interpreted by those on the Treasury Bench that this signals an end to the matter. We will continue to press for accountability and transparency throughout the negotiations and hope that that will find support across the House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I want to speak briefly on new clause 21 and amendment 348. I also want to make some points in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), because I agree with him on half of what he says and not on the other half. I will keep that stored up for the end to try to persuade him to stay; otherwise, I am sure that cups of tea may beckon for many.
I think that new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), is the great confession that we have been waiting for from the pro-Europeans in this House. The new clause has been given the support of some of the most luminous pro-Europeans known to the nation: the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and that great panjandrum of pro-Europeanism, the distinguished gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable). All have signed this new clause. It says what we Eurosceptics have been saying all along: that the European Union produces its law in a form of gobbledegook—stentorian, sesquipedalian sentences that nobody can ever understand—and that when it is brought into British law, it should therefore be brought in in a plain English translation. The title of the new clause is “Plain English summary”.

Kenneth Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend’s description, actually. Does he agree that a lot of these things are almost as bad as the drafting of the Finance Bills that the Government bring before the House of Commons year after year?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful for the humility being shown by my distinguished right hon. and learned Friend, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admits that some of the Bills brought forward by his own former Department are incomprehensible to the lay reader. It is a broader problem of legislation, but it has been a particular problem of European legislation. That is why I have some sympathy for the new clause. As EU law is brought into UK law, which is widely accepted as the right starting point for when we leave the European Union, the Government ought to seek to do it in a form that is intelligible and easy to understand. This is one of the areas where I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who said that that is one of the principles of the rule of law. As we do this, we should of course be sticking to principles of basic constitutional fairness.
It is glorious that the second argument of the Eurosceptics has been accepted in this new clause. The first argument is the basic one of taking back control, but the second is that the fundamental nature of the way in which the EU created law, and the whole body of the acquis communautaire, was not comprehensible to most people, was not subject to satisfactory democratic control, and was a bureaucratic monster that rolled on and on regardless.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course I give way to the hon. Lady, whose constituency I encircle.

Wera Hobhouse: I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Has he ever tried to put any legislation in front of an ordinary person and ask him or her whether it is comprehensible? Our discussion demonstrates our difficulty, as parliamentarians, in making comprehensible to the people who elect us what we are actually about.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In North East Somerset, we do not have ordinary people. We have only exceptional, brilliant and talented individuals of the highest and finest calibre. I have a serious point to make in that: we, as politicians, should never use the term “ordinary people”, implying that we are some priestly caste who understand the mysteries of legislation, whereas ordinary people do not.

Wera Hobhouse: I apologise for the use of the term “ordinary people”. I accept that it is possibly not a very good way of describing the people who elect us.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that. I think the point is important, and we should try to remember it.
A lot of the legislation that we pass can be explained to everybody—even to ourselves—in an understandable way. If we look at the Treasury Bench, we see some of the finest brains in Britain. They get up at the Dispatch Box and explain to us what is going to be passed into law, in terms that even Members of Parliament—including those of us who are not learned Members—can understand. I think that laws can be explained simply, and that is a worthy ambition.
New clause 21 makes the important point that during our period of membership, the EU increasingly turned out law that people did not understand. We have a golden opportunity to improve the quality of the legislation that we pass, improve people’s general understanding of it and improve our own understanding of it. Clarity is just and fair. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we want to apply this to our own work as well. There is no point in complaining about the European Union in that regard, but making our own laws incomprehensible. As an aside to what he said, one of the reasons why there is so much tax avoidance is that tax law is written in so complicated a manner.
Amendment 348 is important, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) rightly said, it touches on the subject of the Humble Address that was brought forward on 1 November. The Government have dealt with the matter, and it is important to look at what they have done in response to the Humble Address. Many Conservative Members have opposed the European Union on the grounds of parliamentary sovereignty and an understanding of the nature of our constitution. We must recognise that a Humble Address motion is unquestionably binding. That has always been the tradition of this place. It is quite clear from “Erskine May” that there is a profound duty on the Government to fulfil the terms of any Humble Address. It will be interesting to see how often the Opposition use that procedure over the next few years to try to get information from the Government.
It is worth noting why the Humble Address procedure fell out of practice. I think the real reason was that Governments tended to command sufficient majorities in the House that a Humble Address motion they opposed would not get through. In the situation of a very slim overall majority, with the help of our friends from the Democratic Unionist party—

Joanna Cherry: Expensive help.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not expensive help. That is quite wrong. As the hon. and learned Lady knows, the £1 billion is less than was spent in Northern Ireland in the last Parliament. It is quite right that a Unionist party should help to form a Unionist Government.
Humble Addresses fell out of favour because they simply could not be got through. We need to look at how the Government responded to the Humble Address. My initial reaction was that the Government had not fulfilled the terms of the Humble Address, because it was not initially clear that the impact assessments did not, in fact, exist. The first indication was that the Government were nervous about producing information —they never said “impact assessments”—that might undermine the negotiating position. That seemed a sensible point to make, but not one that could conceivably override a Humble Address, which took precedence over it.
As the information was presented to the Exiting the European Union Committee, it became clear that the Government had been as helpful as they possibly could have been in producing information that had not, in fact, been requested by the Humble Address, which  asked for something that did not exist. I think that technicalities in this field are important, and it is rational for Governments to follow them.
I happen to think that that is a lesson for the Opposition. If they are to call for Humble Addresses, they must make sure that those Humble Addresses are correctly—even pedantically—phrased to ensure that they are asking for something that really exists. I feel that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was being unfair when he criticised the Government for failing to produce information that did not exist. The Government did as much as they could to produce the two folders—the 800 pages—of sectoral analysis. When we look through the record, we see that that is what the Government always admitted existed. The Government were careful to answer questions by referring to sectoral analyses, even if the questioner asked for impact assessments. That, I think, is where the misunderstanding developed that such impact assessments existed.

David Drew: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in to read the documents, but by no stretch of the imagination are they an analysis or an assessment. They are purely descriptive. Either they have come from Wikipedia or—I think this is more likely—they are a bad piece of GCSE coursework, which would get a fail if it was supposed to contain analysis.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I did go to see the documents, as a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee. I was lucky; I was not told that I had to hand over my mobile telephone, my secret spyglasses or whatever other kit I might have borrowed from James Bond and brought with me so that I could try to take these secret bits of information out to the wider world. I did not have to suffer the great indignity that some other hon. Gentlemen have suffered. I was allowed to sit down and plough through the documents.
I must confess that on that afternoon, I would have been happier reading a P.G. Wodehouse or a similarly entertaining document. I also confess that there was not a great deal in the bit that I read that could not have been found out by somebody with an able researcher or competence in the use of Google. None the less, the information had all been brought together in a usable fashion in one place, and it was an analysis of the sectors covered. It may not have been exciting, it may not have been the read of the century and it may not have won the Booker prize. None the less, it was a detailed sectoral analysis and it more than met the requirements laid down by the Humble Address, which asked for something that did not exist.

Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous to give way again to me. I asked the Secretary of State in the Select Committee where and when he thought the misunderstanding had arisen, but I do not think I got a very satisfactory answer. He had plenty of opportunities in the House to correct us and say, “These are not impact assessments; they are sectoral analyses.” He never chose to do that, and I am still waiting for the answer. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Secretary of State did not have the opportunity to clear up that misunderstanding?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), made the situation clear from the Dispatch Box. He said in no uncertain terms that there were not impact assessments, but there were sectoral analyses. Dare I say that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear? I think the House did not particularly hear that those impact assessments did not exist, and therefore rode over the information that was given from the Dispatch Box.

Stephen Gethins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. I brought up the issue with the Secretary of State in October 2016, when he told me:
“We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 938.]
The hon. Gentleman knows as well I do that there are only 39, and they do not look like assessments of sectors of the economy. Will he join me in asking Front Benchers whether they will clarify their position on that issue?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the Humble Address, which asked for impact assessments, not assessments of the economy by sector. He is asking about another piece of information, which he is quite entitled to do. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for that information, but it in no sense represents a breach of the Humble Address; nor is it covered by amendment 348. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again? No?

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Stewart McDonald: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Let me be bipartisan and take our friend from Scotland first.

Stewart McDonald: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on the SNP Front Bench, he was referring to his own question, not the Humble Address, so will the hon. Gentleman address his point?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, but I was saying that the terms of the question asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and the Humble Address were different. The Humble Address is a binding motion, but although the hon. Gentleman’s questions are very important and deserve to be taken seriously—and treated, as all questions should be, properly and diligently—they are not binding in themselves. It might be a great thing if the hon. Gentleman’s questions were to become binding and have the force and weight of the whole House of Commons behind them, but that is not yet the situation. I will now happily give way to my right hon. Friend.

Desmond Swayne: We are rehearsing matters that I thought had been thoroughly covered, but the reality is that had the Secretary of State not addressed the requirements of the Humble Address, he would have been guilty of a contempt, and Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that that was not the case.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend has put the matter so well that I can move on to my final point.
I wish to make a point about the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and Henry VIII powers, where we have come from and where we are going to in relation to new laws being implemented in the United Kingdom. The part on which I agree with him is that we in this House should always treat Henry VIII powers with the deepest suspicion. The job of the House of Commons is to protect the powers of the House of Commons against an over-mighty Executive. Dare I say to those on the Government Front Bench that all Executives seek to be over-mighty? It is in their very nature, whether our side or Labour is in power. Those of us on the Government Back Benches should always remember that we will not be in government forever. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] I am sorry to say that, but I take a very long view of history, and I can see that at some point in the next millennium we may, heaven help us, have an SNP Government—

Patrick Grady: We have already got one.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: But not for the United Kingdom as a whole—no, not yet. I will wait for the SNP to put up a candidate in North East Somerset, and we will see how well that goes down.

Philip Davies: Would my hon. Friend concede that some of us are always in opposition whichever party is in government?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend puts the point beautifully. That is actually the historical and traditional job of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. We should be here to protect the interests of our constituents and the interests of the constitution, and to hold the Government—of whichever party—to account.
That is why I am in such agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield about the undesirability of Henry VIII powers. However, I said I would diverge from him at some point. The point on which I diverge from him is the perhaps slightly academic one about where we have started from. I think it is inconsistent to say that Henry VIII powers exercised by the British Government, subject to the normal parliamentary procedures of this House and another place, are worrying, but that the Henry VIII powers used under the European Communities Act 1972 were not.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, and there is an argument that this House should not concede Henry VIII powers without very good reason indeed. I suggest that the difference is that the 1972 Act carried the clear implication that this was a necessity in order to meet our international obligations. The question I have asked this afternoon is whether these powers are required to meet some domestic necessity. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench may be able to reassure me that they are, but as the powers are so extensive, it is right that we should question them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is always right that we should question such powers. That issue was about meeting our international obligations, but we volunteered to take on those international obligations by treaty without allowing  the House to have the final say on the regulations that would come in. A political decision was made for the convenience of the then Government to do this in such a way to get that treaty agreed, but that was just as much a power grab from this House as what is currently proposed. Indeed, to my mind, it was a very much greater power grab because of the way in which laws in the European Union are introduced. The key is not co-decision making, which we have heard about—that is marginal, and came in at a later stage—but the fact that the right to present a new law rests with the Commission, which is the least democratic part of the European Union.
One of the glories of this House is that any right hon. or hon. Member may at any point, after the first few weeks of a new Session, go up to the Public Bill Office and seek to bring in a new Bill. The right of initiation of legislation lies with all of us, not just people who win the lottery or have ten-minute rule Bills. It lies not just with the Government; any right hon. or hon. Member has that right. It is such an important part of our ability to represent our constituents and to seek redress of grievance. The highest form of redress of grievance is an Act of Parliament; interestingly, Acts of Parliament emerged at the beginning of the 14th century from the presentation of petitions to this House that Members then turned into Acts. This is at the heart of our democratic system, but it was immediately denied by the basis on which laws are introduced within the European Commission.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the ability of Members to introduce a Bill, but glorious though the right is, is he not slightly exaggerating its force? Given the Executive’s control of the timetable, the likelihood of any Bill introduced in such a way being able to make it into law is pretty minimal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The likelihood is minimal because it would be fairly chaotic if we had 650 Bills coming through each day—understandably, there has to be a means of making this House work; none the less, we have such a right. When Members bring forward really important Bills that are of fundamental significance and have support across the nation, they do eventually get through, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as well as of me and one or two others, to talk out rotten Bills. When Bills are of high quality and have support, they do get through, and that is very important.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman name one that has got through via that procedure during the last Session?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In the last Parliament, we got through a major reduction in prejudice against people suffering from mental health disorders—for example, allowing them to become Members of this House. That very important Act of Parliament was carried by pressure from individual Members. Nobody sought to talk it out—it had very widespread support—and it was taken through by a Back Bencher.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Autism Act 2009 was such an example, as was the legislation creating  marine protection zones that was brought in by our former hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Such Bills do come through—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is saying that they were not presentation Bills. It is fair to say that a presentation Bill very rarely gets through in the first instance, but it can often go on to become a ballot Bill or to receive Government support, so it is the beginning of the process. I certainly would not advocate that each of us should have the right to get a Bill made into law, but we have the right to initiate the process. That is at the heart of the democratic process, but the EU lacks such a system, which is why the 1972 Act created a worse set of Henry VIII powers than the set now being created. Overall, however, as it is nearly Christmas, I am in happy agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

Rosie Winterton: I have the results of today’s deferred Divisions—I know you have all been anxiously awaiting them—which I will now announce. In respect of the question relating to local authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 231, while of those Members representing constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 293 and the Noes were 221, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to combined authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 231, while of those Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 285 and the Noes were 195, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Joanna Cherry: It is always a little daunting to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I thank him for his gracious offer that an SNP politician might wish to stand in his constituency, but I can inform him that the only Scottish politician looking for a safe seat in England at the moment is the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party. The rest of us are quite happy with our seats in Scotland, safe or otherwise.
I wish to speak to amendments 77 and 76, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other SNP Members. Clause 13 and schedule 5 deal, as we have heard, with rules relating to publication and rules of evidence. SNP Members are less concerned with the rules relating to publication, although I would be interested to hear the Government’s response to the pertinent questions raised, as always, by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). We are very happy with the idea—in the terms of schedule 5, paragraph 1—that:
“The Queen’s printer must make arrangements for the publication of”
these relevant instruments, but we share the concern that he very ably articulated as to why there might be certain instruments that would fall into a category that should not be published. It seems most odd.
We also welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and in the name of the Labour Front Bench. We absolutely support  any amendments that seek to achieve transparency and clarity. We also very much support amendment 348, which seeks to revisit the issue of impact assessments, because we share the concerns that were expressed from the Labour Front Bench, and by others who have intervened, about the sorry saga of the impact assessments. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) explained in relation to a question he asked in 2016, there were occasions when the impression was given on the Floor of the House that economic impact assessments existed, no matter what might have been said in response to the Humble Address.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Humble Address related only to sectoral impact assessments. It did not relate to the impact assessment that has been made in relation to the Scottish economy. It is worth reminding ourselves that both the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in response to a question I asked when he gave evidence before the Exiting the EU Committee, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in response to questions raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), said that impact assessments in relation to the Scottish economy do exist, and that they will be shared with the Scottish Government.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. Will she put it to the Minister that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told me in October 2016 not only that there were 51 sectors rather than 39—there was some confusion, and I thank the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for giving way to me on that—but that there was also an assessment that was promised to the Scottish Government back in 2016?

Joanna Cherry: Indeed. And more recently than 2016, following up on that, evidence has been given to two Select Committees of this House that impact assessments relating to the Scottish economy exist, and will be shared with the Scottish Government. I can tell the House that they have not as yet been shared with my colleagues in the Scottish Government, and we have not as yet had any clear backtracking as to the existence of these documents. No doubt that is something that will be pursued in the new year, but I very much welcome the commitment of Labour Front Benchers to continuing to pursue the issue of impact assessments because, as others have said, either they exist and they are not being shared with us—and we know that they do exist in relation to Scotland because we have been told that by two Government Ministers—or they have not been carried out, which is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by the Government if they care at all about protecting the economies of the various nations of these islands.
In relation to the SNP’s amendments to clause 13 and schedule 5, we are very much indebted to the expert assistance we have received from briefings prepared by the Law Society of Scotland for the benefit of all SNP Members, and we have worked closely with the society to inform some of our more legalistic amendments. Those amendments—76 and 77—stem from written evidence that the society has provided to various Committees of this House and the other place.
In the society’s response to the White Paper “Legislating for the United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European  Union”—which many of us have now forgotten about; it seems a lifetime ago—the society recommended that once the process of identifying European Union-derived UK law was complete, that body of law should be collected in an easily identifiable and accessible collection. We believe that schedule 5, paragraph 1 is a significant step forward in that direction, and will be of significant assistance to those to whom this body of law will apply and their advisers, but we agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East that matters would be assisted if they were published in plain English. We also agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield that the Government need to tell us why they want to give themselves the power to withhold publication of some of these instruments. It is hard to imagine what reason there could possibly be.
In connection with schedule 5, part 2, which concerns the rules of evidence, we are in accord with paragraph 3, that where it is necessary in legal proceedings to decide a question as to,
“the meaning or effect in EU law of any of the EU Treaties or any other treaty relating to the EU, or the validity, meaning or effect in EU law of any EU instrument,”
it is very important that that should be treated as a question of law rather than a question of fact. We think that is a sensible provision, which will save time and money and the expense of clients in litigation concerning the EU or the validity or meaning of EU instruments. I shall return to the issue of how retained EU law is interpreted in a moment.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, in relation to schedule 5, paragraph 4, we question why it is necessary to give Ministers quite such sweeping powers. I would also be very interested to hear from the Solicitor General why, if quite such sweeping powers are to be granted, they are tucked away in a schedule, not a clause.
Returning briefly to schedule 5, part 2, paragraph 3 and the issue of how retained EU law is interpreted, I and my friends on the SNP Benches continue to share a number of concerns, which I think are widely shared in the House, about the Bill’s lack of clarity in relation to how retained EU law will be interpreted by courts in the United Kingdom after exit day. They are not just concerns shared by MPs. They are shared by the judiciary, as we have heard in other hon. Members’ speeches and in evidence before various Committees of the House. It all really goes back to clause 6, which deals with interpretation of retained EU law, and with the rules governing the extent to which UK courts may have regard to decisions of the European Court of Justice after exit day.
Much earlier on in Committee—I think it was day 2 —we debated an amendment that I tabled to clause 6(2), which was rejected only narrowly. I was very grateful for cross-party support for that amendment; it was just unfortunate that the Government did not support it. But I do believe that the Government will have to return to that issue, because even if they do not return to it on Report in this House, I have no doubt that it will be returned to in the other place, particularly in the light of evidence that was given to the House of Lords EU   Justice Sub-Committee by a panel of former senior judges on 21 November. My amendment 137 sought to provide that:
“When interpreting retained EU law after exit day a court or tribunal shall pay due regard to any relevant decision”.
of the European Court. It was defeated only narrowly. But very interestingly, now that we have reached the end of the first phase of the negotiations, the Prime Minister and the UK Government, in relation to the protection of EU citizens’ rights, have signed up to a very similar wording. They have said that courts in the UK
“shall…have…regard to relevant decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU”
in future in relation to citizens’ rights.
I am quoting from the joint report on the progress of negotiations, which states:
“The Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of union law. In the context of the application or interpretation of those rights, UK courts shall therefore have due regard to relevant decisions of the CJEU after the specified date”.
The UK Government have therefore now accepted that, in relation to citizens’ rights, UK courts will continue to have regard to relevant decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. I urge them to reconsider, in relation to all our rights and all our rights in retained EU law, whether the courts of the United Kingdom should be able to pay due regard to relevant decisions of the CJEU in future.

Huw Merriman: The hon. and learned Lady is making a very interesting speech. Retained rights for EU citizens perhaps go that little bit further, because they are specific to EU citizens in this country—hence the reference, perhaps with a little more certainty, to the European Court of Justice—but she is seeking to imply that same strict standard for all retained EU law.

Joanna Cherry: The point I am seeking to make is that having vigorously resisted my amendment, which I tabled for the benefit of everybody living in the UK in relation to issues of certainty about the interpretation of retained EU law after exit day, the Government have now conceded some ground—they are going to provide that certainty for EU citizens living in the UK—so why, if it is good enough for EU citizens living in the UK, is it not good enough for UK citizens living in the UK? Perhaps even more importantly—this adds force to my argument—senior members of the judiciary, both current and retired, have very serious concerns that the wording in the Bill as it stands will involve them in having to make political decisions.
In the past few days, we have seen the kind of vicious opprobrium that can be levelled at those who are seen to have made political decisions on the constitution where the EU is concerned, and earlier this year we saw the level of opprobrium directed at senior members of the judiciary for applying the law. The judiciary’s concern, therefore, is very real. I am not here just to advocate for the judiciary; I am here to advocate for democracy, the separation of powers, and the protection of the constitution. I may well have, as my ultimate goal, an independent Scotland with its own written constitution, but as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom I am very interested in preserving UK citizens’ rights and democracy in the UK as a whole and protecting the notion of separation of powers within the constitution.
The Government do not have to take my word for it. They should look very closely at the evidence given to the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee on 21 November. Lord Hope of Craighead pointed out that clause 6(2), as presently drafted, gives them a discretionary freedom rather than an obligation. Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court, said:
“Clause 6(2), as drafted—it is a matter for a judge whether, and if so in what way, to take into account a decision of the Court of Justice on the same point in the regulation or directive, rather than in our statute. The problem for a judge is whether to take into account diplomatic, political or economic factors when deciding whether to follow the decision of the CJEU. These are normally decisions for the legislature, either to make or to tell judges what to do. We talked about our system in this country of judges being given a wide discretion, but this is an uncomfortably wide discretion, because a judge will have to take into account, or in some cases will be asked to take into account, factors that are rather unusual for a judge to have to take into account and that have political implications. It would be better if we did not maintain this system of judges being free to take decisions into account if they saw fit, if they were given some guidance as to the factors which they can and cannot take into account. Otherwise we are getting judges to step into the political arena.”
The issue of how the judiciary are to be given guidance on the interpretation of retained EU law arises directly from the wording of schedule 5 and takes us back to the wording of clause 6(2).

Robert Buckland: indicated dissent.

Joanna Cherry: The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me, but if he looks carefully at schedule 5, as I am sure he has, he will see that it talks about the procedure for interpreting retained EU law. That is why I am revisiting these issues. I am also revisiting them because former Supreme Court judges Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope gave this evidence to the House of Lords after our discussions on clause 6(2) in this House. It is new evidence that the Government really should take away and look at before Report.

Huw Merriman: In a former career, I would take cases and seek direction from the courts on what they believed the law, or previous cases, were intending. Courts and judges are used to exercising discretion. Clause 6(2) makes it quite clear that they may do so if they consider it appropriate, in the same way they can refer to Commonwealth judgments if they believe that to be appropriate. I do not recognise the picture of the judiciary that the hon. and learned Lady is painting.

Joanna Cherry: I recognise it, because in my former career I appeared regularly in the Supreme Court of the UK and the supreme courts of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may not recognise my concerns, but if he shares my professional background, he should recognise the concerns of senior members of the serving judiciary and the retired judiciary. These are very real concerns. They are telling us that clause 6(2), as currently drafted, on how they will be directed to interpret retained EU law after exit day, does not give them the clarity they desire and would leave in their provenance issues that are political and economic, and factors that, to use Lord Neuberger’s words, are rather unusual for a judge to have to take into account. This is complicated.

Dominic Grieve: indicated assent.

Joanna Cherry: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield for agreeing with me on this point. I would expect him to do so, because he, like me, will be paying very careful regard to what current senior judges and retired judges are saying.
I would like to conclude by quoting what Lord Thomas said to the House of Lords Committee after Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope had given their evidence. He said that he entirely agreed:
“It will be a very real problem for future judicial independence and the rule of law if this”—
the guidance—
“is not clarified.”
Put briefly, the problem is that leaving domestic courts free to make independent judgments on such crucial constitutional issues raises the prospect of politicising the judiciary’s institutional role in the Brexit process, resulting, potentially, in further regrettable attacks on the integrity of UK judges like those we saw earlier this year and last week. I therefore ask the Minister to address this problem before Report. I have no doubt that it will be addressed in the House of Lords, but I think it should be addressed in the elected House. The elected House should sort this out and not leave it to their lordships.

Robert Buckland: Given the spirit in which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) moved new clause 21, I was anticipating some form of Christmas truce, and that we would perhaps emerge from our trench lines and play football. As the debate went on, however—this is inevitable on such issues—divisions soon emerged. We have had quite a fierce debate on aspects of the policy surrounding our exit from the EU. First, there was the question of when an impact assessment is not an impact assessment. We then—I am not criticising the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—started down the road of, in effect, reopening the debate on clause 6(2). I did raise my eyebrows at her. I take the point that there is a link with schedule 5, but she will immediately recognise that the schedule tries to answer the old question of whether the recognition or understanding of EU law for the purposes of judicial interpretation is a question of fact or a question of law. It is a mechanism to an end, rather than the means of interpretation itself, which is of course within clause 6.

Joanna Cherry: My point is that, having rightly conceded that it is a question of law, the Government need to address how that law is interpreted by the judiciary.

Robert Buckland: I was about to say to the hon. and learned Lady that, tempted though I am to embark on a long debate with her about why it is important that those who criticise clause 6(2) come up with some sensible alternatives, I am conscious that the Mace is under the Table and that this is a debate in Committee on clause 13 and schedule 5. I do, however, commend to her the evidence I gave to the Lords Constitution Committee last week, at which the very questions she raises were asked of me by Lord Judge and Lord Pannick. In discussion with them, I made the point that, for example, a check list of dos and don’ts for judges would not be an  appropriate way forward. There was a measure of agreement with that assertion, but inevitably these issues will be considered in the other place. Having said that, I think that she is right to make no apology for airing these matters in this House, because it is vital, on a Bill as important as this, that we, as elected Members, inform the other place that we have not given it cursory examination, but considered it very carefully indeed. To that extent, I am extremely grateful to her.
There have been many interesting and important contributions to the debate, and I urge the Committee to agree to clause 13 and schedule 5. It is good to see the hon. Member for Nottingham East back in the Chamber. I took the spirit with which he moved his new clause to heart, and I hope that I can respond in kind to him, but there is one word that perhaps sums up the debate, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who used it himself: sesquipedalian. It is a synonym for polysyllabic, and I am afraid that it is inevitable in such a debate that we will use words of more than two, three or, dare I say, four syllables. I will, however, try to curb my natural inclination to enjoy such diversions and to meet the hon. Gentleman’s argument that we speak in plain English.
On schedule 5, which is the meat of this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves—I say this particularly in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—that we are talking about means of publication and the rules of evidence to be applied. It is important that I gently remind hon. Members of that, lest we start to soar again into the stratosphere of constitutional debate and get unduly worried about the Government seeking to accrue massive power, when really we are talking about, first, how all this information can be presented to the public and, secondly, how the courts should be enjoined to take notice of it.
I will go through the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, particularly with regard, first, to paragraph 2 in part 1 on exceptions from the duty to publish. It is important to note that the direction power under paragraph 2(2) does not allow a Minister to make something retained EU law; it is there merely to enable the Government to ensure that legislation that is obviously not retained EU law does not have to be published. We are trying to minimise the potential for confusion, but we have to be realistic. It will not be possible to ensure without exception that only retained EU legislation is published. We do not think—quite properly, in my opinion—that it is the place of the Queen’s printer to make the determination of what such legislation is. That is why the Bill, quite reasonably, gives powers to Ministers to do this instead.
The powers in part 2 are not quite as alarming as might have appeared at first blush. They are clear and limited. The purpose of the creation of new rules of evidence is to allow them to sit alongside existing rules, including those in primary legislation. Importantly, these powers are subject to the affirmative procedure, which ensures a vote in this House. I will give my right hon. and learned Friend two examples of where the power to make a direction under paragraph 2 may be used in respect of all or part of an instrument. The first would concern an EU decision addressed only to a member  state other than the UK. For example, the small hive beetle is a particular issue in Italy, and Commission implementing decision 2014/909 concerns certain protective measures with regard to confirmed occurrences of that insect. It is addressed only to Italy and quite clearly should not be published as part of EU retained law.

Dominic Grieve: I rather assumed that, given the other extensive powers the Government are taking, we would have that deleted before it became retained EU law in the first place.

Robert Buckland: As I have said, this is a power of publication. It is important not only that we formally delete it, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, but that we provide that it does not end up in the wrong place and thereby mislead the reader or those who want to find an authoritative source for retained EU law. Another example would be EU regulations that have entered into force but are only partially applicable  here immediately before exit day. One example is regulation 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, which has entered into force. One provision applies now, but the rest will apply in the EU only after exit day. To answer him directly, that is why the power exists.
I shall move on to paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 3, as the keenest Members will have observed, is based on section 3(1) of the 1972 Act, which provides that
“any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any EU instrument, shall be treated as a question of law”,
and, of course, when something is a question of law, a court can determine the meaning of that law for its own purposes. Foreign law is normally a question of fact to be pleaded and then proved, often by recourse to expert evidence. Quite rightly, however, we want to allow a question of EU law to continue to be treated as a question of law after exit day, for certain purposes, such as when it is necessary to decide the question of EU law for the purposes of interpreting retained EU law in legal proceedings here.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the Solicitor General take a moment to explain the status of the long preambles to EU regulations and directives. We are taking all this back, so what is their status to be? How will the courts interpret the preambles to regulations and directives that become part of retained EU law?

Robert Buckland: Like any other part of a document, it will, of course, have effect. A preamble is an important statement. It is different from, say, an explanatory note or accompanying document—it is part of the measure and therefore will have force. We are seeking to download that documentation and make it part of our domestic law so that when we read it across, people will know that it is part of our domestic law, albeit in that category of retained EU law.

Sylvia Hermon: The hon. and learned Gentleman, like everyone in the House, will be well aware that our legislation does not have long preambles. I think that the judges need further guidance. He has indicated from the Dispatch Box that the preambles will have force. What weight should the judiciary across the UK give to those preambles, as they are not accustomed to them in British legislation? What does “force” actually mean?

Robert Buckland: To be fair to our judges, they already have the task of interpreting and applying EU regulations and all EU legislation that has direct effect. With respect to the hon. Lady, it will not be a new task for them, and I trust Her Majesty’s judges to get it right. As I said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, it is tempting for the House to try to set out a list of judicial dos and don’ts, but I do not think that that is an appropriate approach. I trust and respect the judiciary to get this right, as they almost invariably do. They answer the question that is put to them, and deal with it in a robust and independent way. As one of the Law Officers responsible for upholding the rule of law, I am happy to reiterate on the Floor of the House that I have the utmost confidence in our domestic judiciary to get it right.
Paragraph 4 is based on subsections (2) to (5) of section 3 of the 1972 Act. Those subsections distinguish between EU-related matters which are to be judicially noticed—such as EU treaties, judgments of the Court and the Official Journal of the European Union—and other matters which, in theory, fall to be proved to the Court, such as EU instruments. For the latter category, rules are provided about how such matters are to be admissible to our courts. It is worth noting that the power in paragraph 4 to make evidential rules is again subject to the affirmative procedure, as it will be used to replace rules commonly found in primary legislation. I think it is important for all Members to note the context in which these powers are to be used.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend is giving a very helpful explanation of the powers in paragraph 4. He may agree that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) should listen to it with care. There he was, expressing his great concern about the way in which legislation and EU law was handled in this country—and is still being handled before we leave the EU—but here the Government are replicating the process for when we have left. I am not allowed to speak in French in the Chamber, but plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Robert Buckland: My right hon. and learned Friend is not just a lawyer but an historian. He will know that a previous Solicitor General, the late Lord Howe, steered the Bill that became the 1972 Act through the House of Commons. I nod to his memory. He knew what he was about, and he helped to produce an extremely important and effective piece of legislation. I make no apology for replicating aspects of it in this Bill.
Let me reassure the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West that the fact that the provision is in a schedule is not significant. It is on the face of the Bill—in primary legislation—and it receives the same high level of scrutiny that it would if it were one of the clauses. I think it only right that clause 13 is drafted in a general way and there is particularity in the schedule. That is good, modern drafting practice, as I am sure the hon. and learned Lady will acknowledge, given her extensive study of other Bills on which we have worked together.

Joanna Cherry: That was not just my concern. It was a concern expressed by the Law Society of Scotland which, as I have said, informed the SNP amendments.  May I take up a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)? These are extremely sweeping powers, but they are tucked away in a schedule.

Robert Buckland: I take the hon. and learned Lady’s point with the utmost seriousness, as I hope I always do, but, with respect to her, I think there is no real significance to be attached to the fact that the provision is in a schedule. This is hardly the longest piece of legislation that the House will have seen, but it will certainly be one of the most pored over—and rightly so. The hon. and learned Lady is doing justice to that through her interventions.
Let me now deal directly with new clause 21. Of course I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East, but I do not consider it feasible to impose a statutory duty requiring summaries of all retained direct EU legislation. The scale of that task would be hard to overstate. I have used the word Sisyphean before, and I think that it applies in this case.
According to EUR-Lex, the EU’s legal database, there are currently more than 12,000 EU regulations in force. To impose a statutory duty of requiring plain English summaries of them would, I think, be disproportionate, given that many explanatory materials have already been issued by the EU about EU law—and, indeed, by UK bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive. One example is documentation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations published by the European Chemicals Agency. That measure has been mentioned many times in the Committee. I believe that, at present, the law is accessible.
I am, however, sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. The Government will explain how we correct the law so that it works in our domestic statute book. As Members will know, it is established practice for an explanatory memorandum to accompany every statutory instrument that is made, and that is what will happen in this instance. Last week, a Government amendment was agreed by the House to provide that a Minister must make statements containing certain information before making statutory instruments under clauses 7 to 9. It includes a requirement that statements include additional information explaining what any relevant EU law did before exit day, and what changes we will make in that law and why. I think that that, in large measure, deals with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and helps to provide clarity.

Chris Leslie: I am grateful to the Solicitor General for addressing new clause 21 in that way, which will be useful to the poor members of the committee that has been given the task of sifting what should and should not be negative statutory instruments. The commitment to provide explanatory memorandums that are readily understandable is very helpful. Dealing with perhaps 12,000 regulations is, of course, a massive task, but does the Solicitor General not agree that that might be one of the unforeseen consequences of Brexit?

Robert Buckland: I think that there are many consequences on which the hon. Gentleman and I could dwell on another occasion. The fact is, however, that it is my task to try to ensure, as one of the Law Officers,  that the principles of the rule of law to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred in his speech—accessibility, clarity and certainty—are adhered to. We will deal with the issues so that we uphold those important principles, which were set out by the late Lord Bingham.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful to the Solicitor General for his generosity in giving way again. As he knows, we do not currently have a functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland, so we do not have Ministers who can abide by his direction about explanatory memorandums that will be issued when EU regulations and directives are brought back, in this context to Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that the Departments in Northern Ireland will have an obligation—a duty—to provide explanatory memorandums in that connection?

Robert Buckland: I think it must follow that when there is no Executive functioning in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office is carrying out functions as a substitute for the Executive, the duty will apply to that Department. I assure the hon. Lady that when we introduce statutory instruments, there will be explanatory memorandums from one source or another. Various Departments will have different responsibilities for the drafting and publication of the statutory instruments, and it will be their duty to produce the explanatory memorandums for Members to consider. I cannot envisage an exception being made. Northern Ireland will be covered in the way in which the hon. Lady wants it  to be.
Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 5 enables the Queen’s printer to make arrangements to publish documents that may be considered useful in connection with anything else published under the schedule. That, I think, allows for the approach that the hon. Member for Nottingham East is requesting. We are committed to ensuring that the law remains accessible and comprehensible after exit day, and on that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause, which I think he said was a probing measure. He will have noted my comment, and I understand his position.
Amendments 76 and 77 have been addressed in particular by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. Amendment 77 seeks to place the power for a Minister to make provision about judicial notice and the admissibility in legal proceedings of specified evidence of certain matters into the Bill. Judicial notice is a term that covers matters that are to be treated as already within the knowledge of the court, and are therefore not required to be “proved”, as other evidence would be, in the usual way. Amendment 76 would remove that power from schedule 5, while not replacing the provisions that clarify the scope of that power.
The power in part 2 of the schedule covers a limited, technical area, and the affirmative procedure will apply. My worry is that, with the removals that amendment 76 make, we will lose clarity on how those powers are to be applied. I imagine that the intention of those who support the amendments is that those clarifying provisions would be inserted underneath the power, but I think that we achieve greater clarity by putting them in this schedule in the way that we have, so I respectfully ask the hon. and learned Lady and the other Members who have tabled the amendments not to press them.
Finally, I will deal with amendment 348. It is tempting for me to plunge into the debate about impact assessments and regulatory and sectoral analyses, but this is an amendment about this Bill, of course, and I remind all Members that an impact assessment for this Bill was published when it was introduced. That is in line with the general practice of Governments of different parties in recent years of publishing impact assessments alongside legislation. We want to continue pursuing that approach, but it must be done in a proportionate and appropriate way.
Amendment 348 would impose an open-ended requirement on the Queen’s printer to publish impact assessments, and could, I fear, create a duty it could not meet. The Queen’s printer does not have a responsibility to decide what should be published alongside legislation; it merely publishes what the Government ask it to, and quite rightly so, we might think. At the same time, Ministers have a specific responsibility, endorsed by Parliament, not to release information that would expose our negotiating position. This amendment would risk doing precisely that in a way that would put the responsibility on to a non-ministerial department—the Queen’s printer—which, with respect to it, is in no place to know what analysis is being undertaken, or to make a judgment about what can be published appropriately, safely and proportionately.
In the context of those remarks, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East to withdraw the new clause, and I support the passage of clause 13 and schedule 5 and beg that they stand part of the Bill.

Madeleine Moon: I rise to speak in support of amendment 348 and new clause 21.
Today, I took the short and wide pavements over to the Department for Exiting the European Union; what a waste of my time that was. I went because I wanted to read what was written in relation to the workforce impacts for the large numbers of my constituents from Bridgend who work in the Ford engine factory and with Tata Steel. So I went to look in particular at the automotive sector and the steel sector reports.
The Ford engine plant is the largest engine works in Europe, and Tata next door in Port Talbot employs the largest number of people in steelworks in the UK. It was interesting that when I got there—having gone through the whole palaver of not taking my phone with me and being walked up to the Department, being asked to sign myself in and being handed the two big files—I found that the document started off by telling me what it was not: the first page I had to wade through told me that 58 sectorial impact assessments do not exist. So what I had gone there to see did not exist. Instead I was told that the paperwork consisted of qualitative and quantitative analyses in a range of documents developed at different times since—that is an important word—the referendum, so this was going to be new information: it was going to be information and analysis not available before the referendum and therefore, sadly, not available to the voters in my constituency or indeed to Members.
The 38—not 58—sector documents consist of descriptions of the sector, comments on EU regulations, existing frameworks for how trade is facilitated between countries and sector views. In the end, they are sector views, and nothing the Government had collected together  was worth going there to read. They did not contain commercial, market or negotiation-sensitive information, as the documents told me, so why on earth could it all not just have been emailed to all MPs? There was nothing there that would upset anybody; all it would have done was insult people, not worry them. Apart from the sector views, it told us nothing that could not be found from a good read through Wikipedia.
There is no Government impact assessment, or indeed any assessment, even in the one part of the document worth reading: the sectoral view. The sectoral view is just there: the Government do not say what they are going to do about it, or even whether they think it is relevant—they just ignore it.
Sir David, what I was greeted with at DExEU would, in all honesty, have insulted us when we were both serving on the Select Committee on Defence; if that had come to us from the Ministry of Defence, we would have sent it back and said, “Do it again.” It was insulting. Members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly would have been confused by such pathetic information being placed before them. So perhaps that is why we are not making it public.
I read the report relating to the automotive and steel industries. The report admits that automotive is central to the UK economy and a key part of our industrial strategy, so we would think that the Government would want to make sure that whatever they were going to do would protect it. The industry employs 159,000 people, with a further 238,000 in the supply chain. I did like one line, which said that the UK is a global centre of excellence for engine design, and offered the example of Ford; that is us down in Bridgend. Automotive earns us £40.1 billion in exports, and the EU is the UK’s largest export market, so we would think this is pretty important stuff.
What were the sectoral view and the concerns? Again, there was nothing new; my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and I could have written this ourselves. In fact, we could probably have written a better sectoral analysis than anything the Government have produced; it was pathetic.

David Drew: Anyone could have written it.

Madeleine Moon: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The sector has said that World Trade Organisation rules and current EU third country tariff schedules will bring a 4.5% tariff on components and a 10% tariff on cars; I think we already knew that. We were also informed that Japanese and Ford motor manufacturing make the UK their base because of access to the EU market. There is a major statement and recommendation there: it will be devastating for motor manufacturing in the UK if we do not continue to have access to the EU markets.
We were also told that automotive is a high-volume, low-margin industry operating a just-in-time process. It was said that customs checks would add to administrative costs, delay production and shipments and create the need for increased working capital and that they would increase the cost of production in the UK. Concern was expressed about access to key engineering staff if higher immigration controls were in place, exacerbating skills shortages where a significant skills shortage already exists, with 5,000 job vacancies, especially in engineering design and production engineering.

John Baron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Madeleine Moon: No, I am going to carry on, because others need to get in.
Turning to the steel sector, I found what I already knew: Wales employs 5,000 people in the steel industry, and the knock-on effect on the steel industry in Port Talbot, Neath, Swansea, Ogmore and Bridgend will be devastating if those jobs are affected in the slightest. I did not waste my time going through all the Government nonsense again; I went straight to the sectoral views. The view of the steel sector was very blunt, just like the people who work in it, and I like that. It stated that policies and practices should remain as closely aligned to the EU as possible. Have I heard the Government promise that at any time during these debates? No.
The sectoral view asked that we retain the UK’s existing trade relationship through the EU’s free trade agreement and similar preferential trading agreements. I have seen no promise of that either. It said that this should be a priority over the negotiating of a new free trade agreement. It also said that if we are to minimise the disruption that Brexit will entail, it will be vital that UK trade policies and practices remain as closely aligned to the EU as possible. The sector would not be happy to learn about the bonfire of the vanities proposed under the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. My local employers and workforce need to know in advance of our exit that the Government have taken into account the economic and financial impact on their lives, their jobs and the future of their children before modifying or abolishing anything.

Anna McMorrin: The Government say that they have carried out significant impact assessments covering the Welsh economy, but they have not been shared with the Welsh Government. What are they, and do they actually exist?

Madeleine Moon: I took that intervention from my hon. Friend because she is a Welsh colleague, and she and her constituents will also be affected by these job losses in automotive and steel. This was nothing to do with rejecting an intervention from the Conservative Benches; it was about giving the Welsh voice prominence in this place, just for a change. Welsh workers are deeply affected by these industries, and it is appalling that the Welsh Government have not been given the information that they need to do what they can. It is equally appalling that we as elected Members are not being given the information that we need to work to protect the people we were elected to protect. The typically patriarchal attitude towards the workforce revealed by the impact assessments that have been done so far is deeply worrying. I do not think that any in-depth analysis of the financial impact has been done.
Interestingly, I was in the USA last week at a defence conference, during which the question of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and a potential free trade agreement with the UK came up. A very senior member of the Trump Administration told us that the US had an ambition for access to all services in each other’s markets and that it was particularly keen to have access to the UK’s financial services. We were told,  however, that it would not be as keen if the US was subject to the European Court of Justice, because it would not want its companies to have such judicial oversight. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the importance of our remaining in the customs union and the single market and being subject to the European Court of Justice. That is how we will protect not only our workforce but the consumers who buy the products that they produce.

Richard Graham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has spoken so well today, and indeed throughout these debates. This is the first time that I have risen to speak on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I do so because I wish to add a little to what has already been said about amendment 348. I do not intend to revisit the arguments put forward in the previous Humble Address, or the decisions taken by our Select Committee. That issue has been dealt with, but since the shadow Minister hinted that the Opposition would come back to it, I want to focus on the substance of the amendment and on why I disagree with it so strongly.
It is my belief that what amendment 348 seeks to achieve is without precedent in the history of negotiations by our country. It would require the Government to publish their economic impact assessments of the policy options for withdrawal from the EU. However, the missing words at the end are “during our negotiations on withdrawal from the EU”. Those missing words matter, because this is a particularly important negotiation for our nation—nobody is any doubt about that—and because this is a particularly delicate time. The Government start negotiations on the implementation period and on our future relationship with the EU soon after the new year. On the other side of the negotiating table, the EU has made it absolutely clear that it will not be publishing all its research. We will therefore certainly not see any published analysis, let alone any impact assessments relating to, for example, what no deal would mean for specific ports in northern Europe, or to any potential drop in GDP for the town of Calais.

Peter Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Graham: Let me just develop my argument first, if I may.
It is therefore a curious affair that we should expect our own negotiating side to lay out in great detail what our own negotiating position should be. I tried to find precedents in our negotiating history, and I did some analysis of negotiations in which I was involved in the later stages. Those were the negotiations leading to the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s. Some Members will remember that there was considerable concern at the time about the economic future of Hong Kong under the sovereignty of Communist China, and therefore about confidence—above all, economic confidence—in the territory. Were any economic analyses of the different scenarios published? No; not least because, had they been published, all of them would surely, at that time,  have made the assumption that any change in the existing arrangements would have been negative to the economy of Hong Kong, and therefore probably to the UK as well.
In fact, today—20 years after the handover—whatever our concerns might be about the commitment to some of the freedoms guaranteed under the joint declaration, Hong Kong has surely made significant economic progress. My point is that any analysis at that time would have been done on the consensus assumptions of the early 1980s, which would have been substantially wrong and, if published, would almost certainly have been an impediment to the sensible, pragmatic, diplomatic negotiating compromise that was then achieved to everybody’s benefit. In the same way today, the range of assumptions behind trying to calculate which future road in the negotiations will be most economically beneficial makes that almost impossible to calculate, so let me give a few examples of the sort of questions that would have to be considered.
The latest statistics show that our current trade is 43% with the EU and 57% with the rest of the world. If our relationship with the EU did not change—if we were not leaving the EU—what would those figures be in five or 10 years’ time? The figure for EU trade has declined, but would that continue or reverse? Would the strong predictions for growth in Asia prove optimistic and accurate or would they underestimate what will happen? Right now, we are exporting more goods than services, which was unimaginable five years ago, but will that continue? How would different trends in goods and services affect our future trade across the world? Which countries would we benefit more from trading with if our goods were doing better than our services or vice versa? When we leave the EU, with whom will we reach free trade agreements? FTAs are just one of the tools available to us, so what other trading arrangements will we set up? How long will each of those agreements take, and what will their economic impact be?
Looking at south-east Asia—the area where I work for the Prime Minister—if we want to, will we be able to move on individual free trade agreements faster than the current progress of the EU? What about the US—the biggest of them all? We know that the US executes 25% of its trade with the European Union with the UK alone and that 50% of its financial services trade is with the UK. Its interest in having a separate FTA with us will largely depend on the degree to which we offer something different or the degree to which we converge, have equivalence or have mutual recognition of the regulations and laws in the EU. Given what I have just outlined, how can we possibly know the economic impacts of various aspects of future potential scenarios with the EU?

Peter Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He seems to be arguing not for or against the publication of information, but against the whole idea of any kind of economic impact assessment at all, which makes me wonder what the Chancellor’s last Budget statement was about. If he is being consistent, does he also think that none of the 16 economic impact analyses published by the Government in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum were worth the paper they were written on? They were also based on surmise and speculation.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, as a historian, I think he raises an interesting question: to what extent have economic forecasts ever been accurate? He might wish to study the assessments of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which have on the whole been consistently gloomy over the seven years that I have been in the House. He would be hard pushed to find a record of any Government being successful in economic forecasting, because all sorts of assumptions have to be made. As a previous Prime Minister once remarked, it is so often in life that events shape things, rather than our own forecasts of what the future might look like.
The hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me back to my point, which is that all these forecasts and assessments of potential impacts depend on a huge number of variables. They will alter by individual company, by sector, by technology and by much else besides. Whatever any Government trying to deliver such an assessment could come up with in terms of the net benefits for different scenarios, they will inevitably prove inaccurate. Therefore, arriving at impact assessments in the definition that the Government use—with clearly quantified conclusions and benefits—would almost certainly prove misleading.
To publish such assessments is to share them with every negotiating partner of the UK and would be a huge own goal. Instead, we should expect the Government to continue doing what they have been doing: setting out their strategy in broad terms, as the Prime Minister did in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches. In due course, a third speech may be needed to shed light on what our Government feel about those important terms, “convergence”, “alignment”, “equivalence” and “mutual recognition”; to highlight the benefits of our services to us and to Europe; and to say why a broad and deep partnership will benefit both us and Europe, including in regard to the sectors of defence, security, research, aerospace, nuclear energy, development, academia and many others besides.
I urge the Government to resist commissioning an economic impact report and analyses of different scenarios under their negotiating strategy; likewise, I urge the House to resist asking for that. Neither will help those who are charged with negotiating, and delivering for our country, a new relationship with the EU that will benefit citizens of Europe, wherever we live. I say that as someone who has tried to defy the unhelpful terms used earlier by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for whom I otherwise have considerable respect.
I voted remain because of the short-term risks to my constituents and our country. I voted for article 50 to honour the result of the referendum. I support the Prime Minister because in these negotiations I trust her to steer us between the exaggerated descriptions of Hades and nirvana. I do not fall into the category of Brexiteer, extreme Brexiteer or extreme non-Brexiteer; I fall into the category of a Member of Parliament trying to help his constituents through an incredibly difficult period. In that context, I am grateful that the Opposition are not going to press amendment 348, and hope they never come back to it.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I rise to speak in favour of amendment 348 and new clause 21. The vote to leave the European Union was an unanticipated shock to the UK economy that increased uncertainty and reduced our country’s expected future openness to trade, investment and immigration with our neighbouring partners, the EU. The pound depreciated by approximately 10% immediately after the referendum. The depreciation raised inflation by increasing import costs of both final goods and intermediate inputs.
Today, according to Citibank analysis, long-run inflation expectations are up to 3.3%, but by June this year the Brexit vote was costing the average household £7.74 per week through higher prices. That is equivalent to £404 per year. Higher inflation has also reduced the growth of real wages; that is equivalent to a £448 cut in annual pay for the average worker. To put it another way, the Brexit vote has already cost the average worker almost one week’s wages owing to higher prices—and we have yet to leave the EU. Amendment 348 refers to impact assessments. We need clear impact assessments to ascertain how such things as well as hard-fought workers’ rights, shared values and environmental protections will be safeguarded.
Several promises were made. Post Brexit, UK Governments will be expected to fulfil the promises made during the referendum campaign. Immigration was, without doubt, a major reason for the result, but at least half of immigrants to the UK every year are from south Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, and they are unaffected by EU laws. It would also be difficult to reduce the number of EU citizens in the UK unless there was a misguided programme to expel them and the UK was prepared to countenance similar expulsions of its citizens from the continent. The challenge will be not how to limit in-flows—something that featured so prominently in the leave campaign—but rather how to sustain the much needed flows of EU nationals to fill jobs in sectors such as agriculture, services and construction, an industry I have been involved in for over two decades.

Kate Hoey: I am following my hon. Friend carefully. Does he agree that my constituents’ relatives from the Caribbean should have the same opportunity to come to this country as those from the European Union, who can come here by right? That is part of the reason why many people from ethnic minorities voted leave: they saw that there would be a fair immigration system, not one that was biased towards 27 other countries.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I have listened closely to my hon. Friend, but we will need to wait until the immigration Bill is introduced to see exactly how we will be affected.
Many British voters believe that by favouring Brexit they were voting for greater spending on the national health service and the rest of the British welfare state. Those voters will become even more dissatisfied when they discover that Brexit will not, in fact, provide anything close to the additional £350 million a week for our NHS that was claimed.
New clause 21 refers to clear explanatory statements about what is happening across this entire process. After Brexit, the UK and devolved Governments will need to carry out many functions that are currently the responsibility of Brussels, including everything from customs checks to determining agricultural subsidies.  Before that happens, however, much of the civil service will be consumed by managing the leaving process between now and the end of any transition period.
Ultimately, the UK is undertaking an enormous administrative challenge in a very short space of time. The Government are reportedly seeking to employ an extra 8,000 staff by the end of the 2018 to help manage the process, with Departments recruiting heavily in recent months. However, it should be noted that they are starting from a very low base. Public sector employment, as a share of people in work, was below 17% in June 2017, the lowest level since records began in 1999, which suggests that the civil service will be unable to manage Brexit alone and will therefore increasingly need to rely on external actors to undertake many of its  functions.
On amendment 348, if the Government cannot even compile impact assessments or sectoral analyses—take your pick—in “excruciating detail,” as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said, how will they effectively manage the process? Our Parliament should be sovereign, and collectively we all need to take back control, but the implications for democratic accountability will be quite profound if and when outsourced services fail to meet public expectations.
If the 3 million EU nationals currently in the UK decide to apply to remain after Brexit and those applications are not processed properly by a private contractor, for example, who will be held accountable when people are wrongly forced to leave? On top of that, the sheer complexity of the Brexit process means there will be a range of convenient scapegoats whom the Government could blame when things go wrong.

Angela Smith: I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the National Audit Office report, published yesterday, on the Brexit work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is already clear that the Department is under pressure, and it is making significant use of external consultants. With no promise of finances, much of the work programmed for Brexit is at risk. Does he agree that could be a significant problem?

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: My hon. Friend corroborates what I have been trying to outline.
Rather than taking back control of public services, Brexit is likely to result in more public services being run at arm’s length from directly elected representatives, who will seek to avoid being held responsible for poor performance. It is also vital that our trade agreement with the EU does not prevent economic growth and the growth in jobs and prosperity that comes with exporting our goods
New clause 21 is all about information, but where is the information for businesses and workers in my Slough constituency? Large businesses in my constituency such as Mars, the confectionary producer, have interconnected sites and factories across Europe, making up an integrated network in which raw materials are moved across borders. Finished products made in one country are packaged, distributed and sold in others. Representatives of Mars are concerned about the return  of barriers to the supply chain and about the possible impact on jobs. During visits to their factory in my constituency, I was told:
“It is a fact that Europe after Brexit will remain a critical market for UK exports and likewise the UK will remain an important market for goods produced and manufactured in other European states. There can be no economic advantage from either side restricting trade with a large market situated on its doorstep. In simple terms, if the UK and the EU fail to agree on a new preferential deal, it will be to the detriment of all.”

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a large company such as Mars is able to import cocoa, chocolate and nuts from African and Latin American states and get over all the trade complexities in that import business, so it is very easy for it to get over some minor issues that he is concerned about with regard to the EU trade?

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but I would point out to him that we already have trade agreements, which is why in a previous exchange in Parliament I pointed out that we need to ensure that we have increased access arrangements and that we continue with the existing access agreements for developing countries.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Mars is clearly able to make an assessment of the impact of the different types of economic arrangements we might have with the EU after we leave, whereas the Government are not? We heard this in an intervention from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is no longer in his place; he completely disregards any value in impact assessments whatsoever. Why can Mars do it but the Government cannot?

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that intervention, because if Mars can do it, I am sure we can do it within Parliament. The Government’s approach is, in essence, keeping business in the dark.
In conclusion, a cliff edge scenario, with us sleepwalking into no deal, which is where this Government seem to be heading, would be severely damaging to us and our economy. We need to change course and avoid this fate of no deal. A starting point on that would be clear and detailed impact assessments.

Chris Leslie: I thank the House for going into much more detail than we perhaps initially expected on these clauses and amendments. It is has been a worthwhile investigation of schedule 5. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in particular, raised pertinent points about rules of evidence, and we have heard good speeches from many of my hon. Friends, too. The Minister says that schedule 5 allows those explanatory memorandums to be produced by Government to help the House to sift through these potentially 12,000-plus statutory instruments that are going to come, so I will take his word on that and we will hold him to account on it. In those circumstances, and as we have many other issues to discuss, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
New Clause 13

Customs duties

“A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations to appoint exit day until Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament making provision for the substitution of section 5 (customs duties) of the European Communities Act 1972 with provisions that shall allow the United Kingdom to remain a member of the EU common customs tariff and common commercial policy.”—(Mr Leslie.)
This new clause would ensure that provisions allowing the UK to remain a member of the Customs Union, as currently set out in section 5 of the European Communities Act 1972 but set to be repealed by section 1 of this Act, will be enacted ahead of exit day.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Chris Leslie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

David Crausby: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 399.
Amendment 349, in clause14,page10,line46,leave out “for a term of more than 2 years”.
This amendment would prevent Ministers using delegated powers to create criminal offences which carry custodial sentences.
Government amendment 400.
Clause 14 stand part.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 8—Committee of the Regions—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall—
(a) maintain a full consultative role for local authorities throughout the process of withdrawal from the European Union, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and decision-making processes for all matters which concern them, and
(b) provide for a formal mechanism in domestic law fully to replicate the advisory role conferred on local authorities via membership of the European Union Committee of the Regions.”
This new clause would ensure that the current consultative role that UK local government currently have via the EU Committee of the Regions would be replicated in the UK after exit day.
New clause 10—Transitional arrangements—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall, in pursuit of a new relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union after exit day, seek to negotiate and agree transitional arrangements with the European Union of sufficient duration to allow—
(a) the conclusion and coming into force of new trade agreements replicating as closely as possible all those trade agreements currently applying to the UK by virtue of its membership of the EU before exit day;
(b) an associate membership of the EU Single Market so that the regulatory settlement existing between the UK and EU before exit day can continue for the duration of transitional arrangements, which shall be not less than two years after exit day.”
This new Clause would require the UK Government to seek transitional arrangements that would allow existing trade agreements which currently apply to the UK to be negotiated and continued for the circumstances applying after the UK has exited the EU, and would seek transitional arrangements including an associate membership of the EU Single Market for not less than two years following exit day.
New clause 11—Ongoing regulatory requirements—
“After exit day the Secretary of State shall continue to assess all EU regulations, decisions and tertiary legislation and publish a report to both Houses of Parliament assessing the costs and  benefits of each regulation and directive and whether HM Government should consider it expedient to propose a similar reform to UK domestic legislation in order to secure an ongoing regulatory alignment between the UK and the EU going forward.”
After exit day the European Union is likely to continue to produce legislation, regulations and decisions that would have applied to the United Kingdom if we had remained a member of the EU. This new clause would require Ministers to publish an assessment of new and developing EU laws and regulations and whether there would be benefits or costs for the UK in adopting similar legal changes to UK domestic legislation with a view to maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU as far as possible.
New clause 31—Promotion of the safety and welfare of children and young people following withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall make the arrangements specified in this section for the purposes of safeguarding children and promoting their welfare from exit day onwards.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for seeking continued co-operation with—
(a) the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol),
(b) Eurojust, and
(c) the European Criminal Records Information System
on matters relating to the safety and welfare of children and young people.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for seeking continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, in relation to the promotion of the safety and welfare of children and young people.”
This new clause would require the Government to lay before Parliament a strategy for maintaining co-operation with certain EU bodies and structures after exit day for the purposes of promoting the safety and welfare of children and young people.
New clause 32—Programmes eligible until exit day for support from the European Social Fund—
“The Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals for a fund to support, on and after exit day, programmes and projects which—
(a) relate to
(i) the promotion of social inclusion amongst children and young people,
(ii) efforts to combat poverty and discrimination amongst children and young people, and
(iii) investment in education, training and vocational training or skills and lifelong learning for children and young people, and
(b) would have been eligible for funding up until exit day by the European Social Fund.”
This new clause seeks to maintain financial support after exit day for projects and programmes which would have been eligible for funding from the European Social Fund.
New clause 33—Mitigating any inflationary risks after exit day—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for mitigating any risks which withdrawal from the EU may present to low income families with children.
(2) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must include a commitment to assess each year whether rates of benefits and tax credits are maintaining value in real terms relative to costs of living as defined by the Consumer Prices Index.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a strategy for mitigating any potential risks which withdrawal from the EU might present to low income families with children.
New clause 40—European Neighbourhood Policy—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a strategy for seeking to maintain a role for the UK in the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy after exit day.”
New clause 41—European Development Fund—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s policy on future payments into the European Development Fund.”
New clause 42—EU Citizens’ Severance Payments—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s policy on EU citizens’ rights to severance payments at EU agencies based in the UK.”
New clause 43—Diplomatic Staff—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s policy on future arrangements for the UK to second diplomatic staff members to the European Union External Action Service.”
New clause 44—Duty to make arrangements for an independent evaluation: health and social care—
“(1) No later than 1 year after this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the impact of this Act on the health and social care sector.
(2) The evaluation carried out by an independent person to be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland departments, must analyse and assess—
(a) the effects of this Act on the funding of the health and social care sector;
(b) the effects of this Act on the health and social care workforce;
(c) the impact of this Act on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social care sector; and
(d) any other such matters relevant to the impact of this Act upon the health and care sector.
(3) The person undertaking an evaluation under subsection (1) above must, in preparing an evaluation report, consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department;
(b) providers of health and social care services;
(c) individuals requiring health and social care services;
(d) organisations working for and on behalf of individuals requiring health and social care services; and
(e) any persons whom the Secretary of State deems relevant.
(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a report of the evaluation, lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”
This new clause would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the Act upon the health and social care sector to be made after consulting the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department, service providers, those requiring health and social care services, and others.
New clause 46—Consultation assessing impact of no agreement with the EU for workers on withdrawal—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation assessing the impact on—
(a) workers in the EU who are UK citizens, and
(b) workers in the UK who are EU citizens
if no agreement is reached with the European Union on the UK’s withdrawal.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a public consultation within six months of the passing of the Act, assessing the impact of not having an EU withdrawal deal on workers in the EU who are UK citizens, and on workers in the UK who are EU citizens.
New clause 47—Assessing the impact of leaving the EU on social and medical care provision for disabled people—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of leaving the EU on social and medical care provision for disabled people living in the UK.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the passing of this Act an assessment of the impact of leaving the EU on social and medical care provision for disabled people living in the UK.
New clause 48—Mutual Recognition Agreements—
“(1) In the course of negotiating a withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to maintain after exit day the full range of mutual recognition agreements with which the United Kingdom has obtained rights of product conformity assessments and standards by virtue of its membership of the European Union.
(2) In respect of mutual recognition agreements relating to the safeguarding of public health, within one month of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for ensuring that existing UK notified bodies, in accordance with provisions laid out in the EU Medical Devices Regulation, may continue to conduct conformity assessment certification for both UK and EU medical devices to ensure continuity within and beyond the European Union.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to seek to maintain existing mutual recognition agreements and to publish a plan for UK notified bodies (such as the British Standards Institute) to continue to perform conformity assessments for medical devices and pubic health-related products deriving both within the UK and from across the EU.
New clause 52—Duty to secure safe harbour—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Prime Minister to seek to secure the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the Single Market and of the Customs Union until such time as the Prime Minister is satisfied that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom and the European Union have reached an agreement on the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has developed a satisfactory framework for immigration controls in respect of nationals of European Union Member States not resident in the United Kingdom on the date on which the United Kingdom ceases to belong to the European Union.”
New clause 54—Implementation and transition—
“(1) Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to secure a transition period prior to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement of not less than two years in duration, during which—
(a) access between EU and UK markets should continue on the terms existing prior to exit day,
(b) the structures of EU rules and regulations existing prior to exit day shall be maintained,
(c) the UK and EU shall continue to take part in the level of security cooperation existing prior to exit day,
(d) new processes and systems to underpin the future partnership between the EU and UK can be satisfactorily implemented, including a new immigration system and new regulatory arrangements,
(e) financial commitments made by the United Kingdom during the course of UK membership of the EU shall be honoured.
(2) No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.”
This new clause would ensure that the objectives set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech are given the force of law and, if no implementation and transition period is achieved in negotiations, then exit day may not be triggered by a Minister of the Crown. The appointment of an ‘exit day’ would therefore require a fresh Act of Parliament in such circumstances.
New clause 56—Saving of acquired rights: Gibraltar—
“(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as removing, replacing, altering or prejudicing the exercise of an acquired right.
(2) Any power, howsoever expressed, contained in this Act may not be exercised if the exercise of that power is likely to or will remove, replace or alter or prejudice the exercise of an acquired right.
(3) In subsection (2) a reference to a power includes a power to make regulations.
(4) In this section an acquired right means a right that existed immediately before exit day—
(a) whereby a person from or established in Gibraltar could exercise that right (either absolutely or subject to any qualification) in the United Kingdom; and
(b) the right arose in the context of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and Gibraltar’s status as a European territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible within the meaning of Article 355(3) TFEU and to which the provisions of the EU Treaties apply, subject to the exceptions specified in the 1972 Act of Accession.
(5) Nothing in this section prevents the use of the powers conferred by this Act to the extent that acquired rights are not altered or otherwise affected to the detriment of persons enjoying such rights.”
The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the Bill does not remove or prejudice rights (for instance in the financial services field) which, as a result of the UK’s (and Gibraltar’s) common membership of the EU, could be exercised in the UK by a person from or established in Gibraltar, where that right existed immediately before exit day.
New clause 59—Mutual recognition of professional qualifications—
“(1) In the course of negotiating a withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to maintain after exit day the mutual recognition of professional qualifications which the United Kingdom has obtained under Directives 2005/36/EC and 2013/55/EU by virtue of its membership of the European Union.
(2) HM Government shall ensure that competent authorities for the purpose of the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 may continue to recognise professional qualifications obtained in the European Union as equivalent to qualifications obtained in the UK after exit day to ensure continuity.”
This new clause would (a) commit the Government to seeking to replicate in the withdrawal agreement the framework for mutual recognition of professional qualifications the UK has at present and (b) allow competent UK authorities to continue to recognise EU qualifications as equivalent to their UK counterparts.
New clause 61—Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the United Kingdom participates in the standards and procedures established by the Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (“REACH”) (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) after exit day.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, steps under subsection (1) may include regulations under section 17, or another provision of this Act, providing for full or partial participation of the United Kingdom in REACH.”
This new clause would ensure that after withdrawal from the EU, the UK continued to participate in the Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals.
New clause 71—Mutual market access for financial and professional services—
“(1) Before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing the progress made by Her Majesty’s Government in negotiating continued mutual access to markets in the EU and the United Kingdom for businesses providing financial or professional services.
(2) ‘Mutual access to markets’ means the ability for a business established in any member State to provide services in or into the United Kingdom and vice versa.”
This new clause would require a Minister to report before exit day on the Government’s progress in negotiating mutual market access for financial and professional services
New clause 72—Importation of food and feed: port health etc.—
“(1) Before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing the progress made by Her Majesty’s Government in negotiating—
(a) continued mutual recognition of standards, inspections, certifications and other official controls, and
(b) a continued basis for co-operation among public authorities, as between the United Kingdom and the EU in relation to food or animal feed—
(i) produced in, or imported from a third country into, the United Kingdom or a member State, and
(ii) subsequently exported from the United Kingdom to a member State, or vice versa.
(2) Any power of the Secretary of State or a Minister of the Crown (including a power under retained EU law) to make regulations requiring or authorising the charging of a fee or other charge in respect of the inspection of food or animal feed on its importation into the United Kingdom must, so far as reasonably practicable, be exercised so as to allow public authorities conducting such inspections fully to recover any costs incurred in the carrying out of such inspections.”
This new clause would require a Minister to report before exit day on the Government’s progress in negotiating mutual recognition of controls on food and feed imports. It would also require the Government to permit, so far as possible, full cost recovery for authorities carrying out border inspections of food or feed.
New clause 83—Strategy for UK wind energy sector—
“(1) Within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal from the EU, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for supporting the UK wind energy sector in its ability to export competitively to markets in the EU.
(2) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must assess the impact that—
(a) tariffs,
(b) quotas,
(c) customs checks, and
(d) other non-tariff barriers
arising from any withdrawal agreement with the EU will have on the UK wind energy sector’s ability to export competitively to EU markets over the next twenty years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a strategy for supporting the UK wind energy sector in its ability to export competitively to markets in the EU following exit day, and to do this within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal.
New clause 84—UK higher education sector: participation in EU programmes—
“(1) Within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal from the EU, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy setting out its intentions  regarding the nature of the UK higher education sector’s future participation in—
(a) the 2014-2020 Horizon 2020 programme,
(b) the Erasmus+ Exchange programme, and
(c) future EU research, collaboration and student exchange programmes.
(2) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must set out its intentions regarding the extent to which the UK higher education sector will be able to access existing and future EU programmes after exit day both—
(a) during any transitional period, and
(b) following any transitional period.
(3) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must also estimate the future impact that any withdrawal agreement will have on the UK higher education sector in terms of—
(a) the financing of future research,
(b) the quality of future research, measured according to the Research Excellence Framework, and
(c) the ability to participate in future EU-wide collaborative research programmes in the twenty years starting from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.
(4) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must also set out the extent to which UK Government funds will address any shortfalls identified from calculations and estimates made as a result of subsections (2) and (3).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal, to lay before Parliament a strategy setting out its intentions for the UK higher education sector’s future participation in current and future EU research, collaboration and student exchange programmes following exit day. This strategy would have to set out the long-term impact that the withdrawal agreement will have on the UK’s future participation, and set out the extent to which UK Government funds would mitigate this impact.
New clause 85—Strategy for economic and social cohesion principles derived from Article 174 of TFEU—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 31 December 2018, lay before Parliament a strategy for developing principles for economic and social cohesion derived from Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(2) The strategy laid under subsection (1) shall state the principles derived from Article 174 of TFEU.
(3) The principles under subsection (2) shall form part of UK domestic law on and after the day of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(4) The aims of the strategy under subsection (1) shall be—
(a) to reduce inequalities between communities, and
(b) to reduce disparities between the levels of development of regions of the UK, with particular regard to—
(i) regions with increased levels of deprivation,
(ii) rural and island areas,
(iii) areas affected by industrial transition, and
(iv) regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for programmes to implement the strategy.
(6) Programmes under subsection (5) shall run for a minimum of ten years and shall be independently monitored.”
This new clause would enshrine in domestic law the principles underlying Article 174 (Title XVIII) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Government amendment 401.
Clause 15 stand part.
Amendment 362,in schedule 8, page49,line4, after “document” insert “(not including a contract)”.
The amendment would make clear that the Bill does not modify the interpretation of contracts relating to EU law.
Amendment 102, page50,line2, leave out paragraph 3
This amendment would remove the additional power provided in paragraph 3.
Amendment 103, page50,line41, leave out paragraph 5
This amendment would remove the future powers to make subordinate legislation in paragraph 5.
Government amendment 402.
Amendment 380, page55,line16, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
“(1) For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, any retained EU legislation is to be treated as subordinate legislation and not primary legislation.”
This amendment would amend the status of EU-derived domestic legislation to subordinate legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Amendment 11, page55,line17, leave out “primary legislation and not”.
This amendment would remove the proposal to allow secondary legislation to be treated as primary for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Government amendments 403 to 405
Amendment 291, page58,line31, leave out paragraph 28 and insert—
“(1) The prohibition on making regulations under section 7, 8, or Schedule 2 after a particular time does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made at or before that time, except where subparagraphs (2) and (3) apply.
(2) Regulations may not be made under powers conferred by regulations made under section 7, 8, or Schedule 2 after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.
(3) Regulations made under powers conferred by regulations made under section 7, 8, or Schedule 2 may not be made during the two year period in subparagraph (2) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require all tertiary legislation made under powers conferred by regulations to be subject to Parliamentary control.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 120, in clause19,page14,line40,leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force once following a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should approve the United Kingdom and Gibraltar exit package proposed by HM Government at conclusion of the negotiations triggered by Article 50(2) for withdrawal from the European Union or remain a member of the European Union.
(2A) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.
(2B) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—“Do you support the Government’s proposed new agreement between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar and the European Union or Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”
(2C) The Secretary of State may make regulations by statutory instrument on the conduct of the referendum.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that before March 2019 (or the end of any extension to the two-year negotiation period) a referendum on the terms of the deal has to be held and provides the text of the referendum question.
Amendment 82, page14,line40,at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A)”.
This amendment is a consequential amendment resulting from Amendments 78, 79 and 80 to Clause 1 requiring the Prime Minister to reach an agreement on EEA and Customs Union membership, gain the consent of the devolved legislatures and report on the effect leaving the EU will have on the block grant before implementing section 1 of this Act.
Amendment 85, page14,line42,at end insert—
“(2A) But regulations bringing into force section 1 may not be made until the Secretary of State lays a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales
outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’s block grant.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to lay a report before the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on Welsh finances, before exercising the power under section 1. This would allow for scrutiny of the Leave Campaign’s promise to maintain current levels of EU funding for Wales.
Amendment 86, page14,line42,at end insert—
“(2A) But regulations bringing into force section 1 may not be made until the Secretary of State lays a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales
outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Single Market and Customs Union on the Welsh economy.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to lay a report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU Single Market and Customs Union before exercising the powers in section 1.
Amendment 219,page14,line42,at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day for any provision of this Act to come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on which Scottish products will be identified with geographical indications in any future trade deal that Her Majesty’s Government seeks to negotiate after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and has laid a copy of the report before Parliament.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government report on which Scottish products will be identified with geographical indications in any future trade deal that Her Majesty’s Government negotiates after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Amendment 220,page14,line42,at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day for any provision of this Act to come into force until a Minister of the Crown has published an assessment of the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on Scottish businesses and laid a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on Scottish businesses.
Amendment 221,page14,line42,at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day for any provision of this Act to come into force until a Minister of the Crown has published an assessment of the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on food and drink safety and quality standards, and has laid a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on food and drink safety and quality standards.
Clause 19 stand part.

Chris Leslie: We find ourselves in the last part of day eight of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee. Frankly, it has come around far too soon. Members  might want another day before Christmas—I do not know whether that can be arranged at the last minute by the Leader of the House.
This group of new clauses and amendments relates to a set of incredibly important issues. I am particularly keen to speak to new clause 13, which relates to the customs union, but there are many other new clauses and amendments in the group that are worth dwelling on. Before I come to new clause 13, I shall point out a few of them.
New clause 54, which was tabled by the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), would wisely put into law the commitment that the Prime Minister made in her Florence speech to a transitional arrangement—she prefers to talk about an implementation phase—such that exit day would not be authorised unless we had a transitional phase lasting
“not less than two years”.
Personally, I think it would have to last for more than two years, although Michel Barnier suggested today that it should be less than two years—the European Commission announced today that it wants the transition phase to be done and dusted by 31 December 2020. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
The Prime Minister said in her Florence speech that she wants market access to continue on the terms existing prior to exit day; that existing structures need to be maintained; that we need to continue with security co-operation; that we need to agree any new processes to implement change and to have enough time to establish a new immigration system; and that we will honour our financial commitments. All those things are quite widely shared desires for the transition period, but we cannot simply rely only on a verbal commitment by Ministers or the Prime Minister. Given how significant this is, it is important that we enshrine in the Bill those objectives for the negotiating process. I commend the Father of the House for that.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when he and I tabled new clause 54, we did so consciously trying to replicate Government policy as stated in the Florence speech? If the Minister would fairly promptly acknowledge and accept that, we should be able to save some time for the other important matters to be discussed in relation to this group.

Chris Leslie: That is an excellent suggestion. We could almost add new clause 54 to the copy-and-paste process, given that it is based on the Prime Minister’s own words. Obviously, I personally would like to go further, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I tabled the new clause in the spirit of compromise.
New clause 48 serves to highlight the important but often overlooked question of mutual recognition agreements. MRAs are another series of international obligations between countries. The UK has obtained rights for notified bodies to undertake conformity assessments to make sure that standards across the EU are complied with and that UK firms can certify assessments of conformity across that market of 500 million people by virtue of the process that they undertake in the UK. If we lose that MRA process, it could cause immense disruption to many businesses and sectors in the UK.

Melanie Onn: I know that Ministers are already aware of REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—but the regulatory compliance of companies such as BASF in my constituency is essential to the continuation of effective trading across borders. I really do not want to see companies moving elsewhere, perhaps where regulations are easier to follow, because we will lose good jobs in research, development and manufacturing, and all in the incredibly important science, technology, engineering and maths sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that our leaving REACH will put that at risk?

Chris Leslie: I entirely agree and my hon. Friend is completely correct to stand up for her constituents and local businesses and to make that point, which is too often overlooked. We need mutual recognition arrangements like the REACH regulations. It is often said that big corporations want to get out of such regulations, but in this case they want to stay part of that framework because it allows them to access markets. If we sacrifice that access, they will lose out and jobs will go as a result.
On a related issue, new clause 59 concerns the recognition of professional qualifications throughout the EU. I have been talking to the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is very worried about British graduates in architecture and those already in practice who often have services to sell across that wide range of 28 countries—as it is currently—and it is deeply concerned about whether its professional qualifications will continue to be recognised for the purposes of its ongoing business in that wider market. This is really serious stuff, and I hope that the Minister will address the matter when he has time to respond to these amendments.
New clause 11 is about how Parliament should be able to keep track, even after exit day, of regulations that are being made in the European Union. When we leave, we will obviously have our own jurisdiction and the EU will have its own jurisdiction, but if the EU continues to evolve its regulatory practices and to make new changes to rules and laws, we need some device to keep us informed in the UK Parliament so that we have the choice over whether to contract with those rules and stay in alignment or to ensure that we have regulatory equivalence. This is really more of a procedural new clause, but it is just asking the question of how we will keep in touch given that these are our near neighbours and the markets with which we have to remain aligned.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is proposing a whole series of amendments that would certainly improve the current dire situation of this Bill, but is not a simple solution to all these amendments to stay in the single market and the customs union?

Chris Leslie: That is indeed the simple solution. I was building towards that crescendo, but there is always somebody who steals my punchline. That is effectively the conclusion that I have reached. Before I do reach it, there is another important measure, new clause 8, that English local authorities have been keen to see in the Bill. Currently, they have consultative rights on those areas of policy that are currently decided within the European Union framework by virtue of their membership of something called the Committee of the Regions. I know that some Government Members may baulk at that as some sort of bureaucratic committee that has no  purpose, but many local authorities value the voice that they have through that committee into the policymaking process at European level. The question they are asking is: will they still have those same consultative rights when those areas of policy are brought back into a UK context? It is a fair question and I hope that the Local Government Association’s points will be addressed.
The main issue that I want to discuss is new clause 13, which relates to the customs union. It would ensure that we do not get past exit day without new legislation that allows the UK the option to remain a member of the customs union—in other words, the EU common customs tariff and common commercial policy. We must be absolutely crystal clear about this: ditching the most efficient tariff-free, frictionless, free-trade area in the world is what we are on the brink of doing for something that will inevitably—inevitably—be inferior. The referendum ballot paper did not include that question and put it in front of our electors. What we have seen is the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the result of that referendum, but that does not have to be Parliament’s interpretation.
If we find ourselves messing up the way that the UK border operates, the Irish land border, our ports and our airports, then vast swathes of our businesses and our economy face very, very significant disruption. Indeed, customs is, potentially, the overnight cliff-edge issue that will hit the headlines if we get this wrong, particularly if we have no deal—that hard Brexit.
Let us consider the issues at stake: last year, goods worth £382 billion were traded between the UK and the European Union. That is virtually the same amount as the UK traded with the rest of the world, so we are talking about trade of half of our goods. In fact, the system currently works so well across the 28 countries— 500 million people—that professionals talk not about exports and imports, because the movement of goods and services is so seamless and frictionless, but about arrivals and dispatches. It is as simple as that. That is how businesses regard the inventory available to many of them through the warehouses across the European Union. For car manufacturers in the UK, selling a car to a customer in Birmingham is just as simple as selling one in Berlin or Brussels. Fewer than 1% of the lorries that go through Dover or the channel tunnel—the main conduits for goods and traffic—require checks, so it is a smooth and seamless process at present.

Tom Brake: It is indeed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has visited Dover port. If he has, he will know that the site has no room available for customs checks. If he has visited the channel tunnel, he will also know that there is no capacity whatever to do any customs checks there.

Chris Leslie: Yes, and we all presumed that some of the £3.7 billion of preparations money would be spent on tarmacking fields around those areas in preparation for lorry parks and the overflow from the possible queues on the motorways.

Mary Creagh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are failing to understand the deep complexity of supply chains in the EU? He is talking about the finished product of a car, but there are also many automotive components that go backwards and forwards between the UK and mainland Europe. Sometimes within a single company, one part is made  on mainland Europe, fixed into a car in this country and then exported back out to Europe. I also believe that the planning application for the lorry park was rejected because the council failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment.

Chris Leslie: We will have to see what happens there. I think that about 2.5 million lorries a year go through the port of Dover; just think about the volume of traffic we are talking about.

Wera Hobhouse: The Brexit Select Committee actually visited Dover and we then met a representative of the port of Calais. Although this country is prepared to build a lorry park, the French side will not build a lorry park because it has a migrant crisis. The port of Calais will just close under these circumstances, so where will we export to and import from?

Chris Leslie: I know that the Minister will answer all these questions as soon as he sums up this debate. He has the answers in his pack and he is not one to shilly-shally; he will give us specific and detailed responses to these questions.

Angela Smith: May I turn my hon. Friend’s attention to Ireland? Freight traffic to Dublin has enjoyed a growth rate of 700% since the establishment of the single market, but the control zone of the terminal is no bigger than it was in the 1980s, thanks to the fact that it has enjoyed the dismantling of customs control and port health control. Is he aware of any preparations or investment to deal with this potential problem if we do abolish the customs union?

Chris Leslie: No, and preparations would be needed for all sorts of other checks, including sanitary and phytosanitary checks. This would be for every port around this country, and I think that more than 1 million containers come in through the port of Southampton alone.

Anna Soubry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my view that most people in this country do not understand the huge benefits of the customs union? Of course, a huge swathe of people have never had any experience of stuff being stopped in customs. I certainly remember those days because of my age. Has it been his experience that British businesses are in many ways even more concerned about the movement of goods and tariffs and not being in the customs union than the actual imposition of the tariffs themselves? Companies such as Rolls-Royce in neighbouring Derby hugely benefit from these large supply chains and they are really worried about our leaving the customs union.

Chris Leslie: The right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) are right to focus on supply chains. The tariff could be a problem. Who knows what that would be—3%, 4% or 5%—if we fell back on the World Trade Organisation? Think of the disruption to business planning. A lot of firms would almost need to have an insurance policy at their disposal for the warehousing just to cope with the flows. We could be on the brink of many manufacturers fundamentally having to move away from the just-in-time business models that they have developed; it is almost like “RIP JIT” in this circumstance. We could almost  see a whole new business model—we could be stepping back into the 20th century and earlier—if we get this wrong.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and indeed to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for drawing attention to this wider point, which greatly troubles manufacturers in my constituency, in particular. As things stand, they manufacture and ship immediately to customers in other parts of the European Union. We have a huge shortage of available space for new warehousing facilities in Greater Manchester, and it is really important that the Government understand that wider context—it is not just a question of problems at the ports.

Chris Leslie: We must not take these arrangements for granted. Many of our constituents have taken them for granted for decades now and thought, “Oh, well, this is all seamless,” so they would not understand, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said.
It is worth just walking through what happens when we do not have this sort of seamless arrangement. If a country is outside the customs union, this is what happens to goods that are destined for elsewhere. Before departure, people have to complete an export declaration, which is often lodged with a freight forwarding company. At the port of exit, the goods need to be cleared by the authorities, who decide whether inspection is needed. If so, the goods are possibly placed into storage and checked. Then, once they have left and travelled to the port of entry in the destination country, they are presented to the authorities via another declaration process, and potentially placed in storage again. Then there are country-of-entry checks and risk assessments; there is revenue collection; there could be checks for smuggled, unlicensed goods; and there are things such as hygiene, health and safety measures, labelling, consumer protection checks, the administration of quota restrictions, agricultural refunds, and trade defence checks to ensure that things are not being dumped unfairly in the country. All these administrative processes will absolutely add to the export process for goods.

Melanie Onn: Great Grimsby is well known for its fish and fish processing. We have discussed extensively some of the issues around delays to things such as automotive sector products, but we also have fresh products, such as fish. Fish is caught in Norway and imported to Grimsby, and it is an essential part of the fish processing industry. Any additional delays to that product will mean that supermarkets will not buy it—they will not want it—and the quality will reduce. That will have a really serious impact. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the issues around the delays and to make sure that the Government understand that reducing those delays in any way possible has to be at the forefront of their considerations.

Chris Leslie: The delays will probably be of great concern to the companies involved in those shipments, because those goods have to be fresh and delivered on time. However, if we fall back on to WTO arrangements, there is also the potential 8% tariff for fish and crustaceans.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is concerned for companies on that particular point, when  Norway is not in the European Union or the customs union—it is in the single market. Therefore, the customs union aspect simply does not apply to Norway.

Chris Leslie: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are concerns. He said Norway was a “vassal state”—I think that was his phrase. I do not think the Norwegians would see it that way, but they have had to simply take instructions, in many ways, in terms of the European Union arrangements on a lot of these questions. With many of our products, particularly in the manufacturing sector, the customs union has given us great opportunity to thrive, and we have done particularly well in recent years on the back of that.

Wera Hobhouse: On that point, the Norwegian border is very interesting. Norway is in Schengen, so it does border checks on goods, but it does not need to do border checks on people. The main problem, of course, is that we are not in either. We need, at some point, to address the issue of how we check that lorries are not bringing into this country people we do not want to be here. I know that taking back control of our borders is a very important point, but there will be important discussions to be had about how we make that possible. Container ports will be okay, because we can seal the loads, but it will be a lot more difficult with lorries, because they take separate loads from separate consignments, and they need to be opened several times. So the issue of people smuggling is becoming quite potent.

Chris Leslie: The hon. Lady deals with the point incredibly well.
If we end frictionless trade or introduce barriers, with potentially the return of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, very significant problems will arise. The Government are either deluding themselves by saying, “There’s some miraculous blue-skies technological solution to all these things”, or deluding others because of the fudging and obfuscation that is going on, when, in moving from the phase 1 to the phase 2 process, they put in a form of words that seems to be interpreted in almost as many different ways as there are people reading them. They have kicked the issue into the long grass for now, but we are not going to be able to get to a decent deal without this unravelling.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The long list of checks that the hon. Gentleman read out that would be applicable are, as he knows, currently applied. That is done in a very mechanical way, often by computer through a trusted trader-type scheme. A lot of the mechanisms, procedures and protocols that he read out, especially for food and medical products, are already applied. What would lead to new and additional checks is a change in tariffs between our exports and imported goods. Therefore, surely the imperative for everyone in this House is to urgently get on to the part of the negotiations where we can get a tariff-free deal with the EU. Otherwise some of the issues that he highlighted will need to be covered.

Chris Leslie: I agree that we want to have a tariff-free relationship with our European neighbours—that much we can all agree on. However, the hon. Gentleman  should look at the circumstances where we export to third countries outside the European Union that are not part of the free trade agreements that we have accrued over the 40 years of our membership of the European Union. Those free trade agreements are there for a reason. As we heard earlier, the reason people want out of the pure WTO arrangement and into an FTA is precisely that they want to minimise many of the transactional barriers and the inertia that can be there.
Let us take the car industry as an example. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the car industry’s own representative, is now voicing concerns about investment in the sector gradually beginning to ebb away, partly because of the uncertainty of this whole situation. The level of investment in the industry in the UK was £2.5 billion in 2015, then £1.6 billion in 2016, and it is heading to less than £1 billion this year. Car companies are “sitting on their hands”, according to the chief executive of the SMMT.

Stephen Timms: I want to take my hon. Friend back to what he was saying about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We had evidence this morning at the Brexit Committee on this. As he knows, in their recent agreement with Brussels, the Government committed to having no infrastructure at the border, and, if necessary, to our providing full regulatory alignment with the internal market and the customs union in order to achieve that. Is he encouraged by that commitment, even though the Government’s current policy is not to stay in the customs union, because if it stands, it looks very likely that we will have to, in effect, stay in the customs union?

Chris Leslie: Absolutely. If we can maintain full alignment, which was the phrase used in that agreement, that is essentially the same thing as a customs union arrangement. However, there was a caveat in that Ministers said that it would apply unless specific solutions can be found for divergence that they might want to see. That is a bit like the European negotiator’s way of saying, “Come on then, do your best—let’s have a look at what you can dream up.” The worry that I had when the Prime Minister returned was that her interpretation of full alignment was to reference the old list within the Good Friday agreement that merely talked about areas such as agriculture, energy and tourism but excluded trade in goods, which is a pretty big part of the issue at the border. I do not think the European Union signed up to this thinking that there was an exclusion for trade in goods. It is a question of “watch and wait” until the situation unravels.

Tom Brake: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to another border that he referred to, namely that between Norway and Sweden? Our Secretary of State for Transport is on record as saying that that is a completely frictionless border, across which things move with ease. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the case? I think it was the Swedish trade body that said Norway is the hardest country to trade with.

Chris Leslie: I have not seen that information, but there are all sorts of bits of infrastructure involved. There are separate roads and lanes for the processing of different things. As I have said, I am sure that the Minister will have solutions for all those problems.

John Baron: Before the hon. Gentleman whips himself up into too much of a state of pessimism, may I gently remind him that inward investment is at a record high? If anything, it has picked up recently. In addition, because the EU has no free trade deals with big trading partners such as the US, China, Australia and New Zealand, and neither do we. That has not prevented trade from being conducted handsomely; if anything, our surpluses are with those countries rather than with the EU.

Chris Leslie: I will come to the US situation in a moment. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the inward investment figures are massively inflated because of mergers and acquisitions data. When we consider the buy-outs of some of the large technology companies—[Interruption.] Well, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman should necessarily interpret the stripping out of British ownership of such companies as a great British success. If he digs beneath the statistics, he might see a slightly different picture.
Our mythology about the UK’s potential to strike a great and bountiful set of trade deals if we could only rid ourselves of the shackles of the customs union is becoming a bit of a joke across the British economy.

Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Leslie: I will give way in a moment. Our justification for leaving the customs union has to be more than simply to keep the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade in a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is keen to intervene, took evidence on some of these questions this morning.
I think that the potential United States deal that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) referred to is being kiboshed as we speak. The US would want an agricultural basis for any trade deal with the UK, but there is a reason why the Americans dip their chicken in chlorine: they have entirely different and lower animal welfare standards than do the UK and the EU. If we were to do an agricultural deal with the US on the basis of those lower standards, it would undercut our farmers, abattoirs and food producers, who would have to chase each other down to the level of the lowest common denominator. It is contradictory to hear the Environment Secretary saying that he does not wish in any way to reduce safety standards or animal welfare standards, and he may well be killing off the idea of a US trade deal with his pronouncements.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way again. This morning, the Secretary of State further entrenched his position, which will make it very difficult to complete a US trade deal involving food and food products. The other evidence that we have received in the Select Committee has indicated, week after week, that many parts of the agricultural sector believe that the UK Government over many generations—not just this Government, but previous ones—have never done the political or diplomatic brokering work necessary to build our export trading position with third countries outside the European Union. What on earth makes us think that we can now pull off this magic trick of building trade around the world to replace that which we have had with the European Union?

Chris Leslie: It is possible that our civil service will eventually gear up to do these things, and I would be the first person to say that we of course want to do new trade deals to repair some of the damage caused by this whole process, but it is not going to happen overnight. In fact, as you will remember, Sir David, Vote Leave promised during the campaign ahead of the referendum that we would be negotiating trade deals the day after the referendum and that they would all get going straightaway, but we are yet to see any of that actually kick off.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted this contradiction, so will he explain why the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has not signed new clause 13—after all, he is on the record as saying that staying in the customs union would be a “disaster”—and why, given that Labour Members were whipped to vote against staying in the customs union, they have now made a volte-face and decided that staying in it is a possibility? What actually is the decided and determined policy of the Labour party on this issue?

Chris Leslie: I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) can speak for himself; he has done in the past and will do so again. I take the view that we should not shilly-shally on this issue, but stand up and say that there are risks to business and to our borders from our ports and airports being clogged up. We should also say that there is an economic cost—revenue costs for the Treasury—that could mean years of Brexit austerity ahead. All hon. Members, whichever side of the House we are on, need to recognise that some of the responsibility for these things will fall on our shoulders if we do not stand up now and say that staying in the customs union is the right way to proceed.

Huw Merriman: rose—

Anna Soubry: rose—

Chris Leslie: I may give way, because we have been talking about the USA, and some people have speculated about a trade deal with India.

Anna Soubry: Yes, on that point.

Chris Leslie: I give way to the right hon. Lady.

Anna Soubry: Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience, has he, like me, talked to people about the detail of the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, as well as about what the Australians and the Indians—and many other countries that are apparently queuing up to do these great trade deals with us—want? At the core of any free trade agreement with such countries will be an absolute requirement for their people to be able to come to our country quite freely, as they can with the accelerated migration policy under CETA. Under that free trade deal, the Canadian people have the ability to come into parts of the European Union. It is a myth to think that this is about trade, because a huge part of it is about immigration.

Chris Leslie: Absolutely. The right hon. Lady has taken the words out of my mouth. I would love to see the Government’s draft free trade agreement with India. I hope that there are fantastic manufactured goods or widgets that the British want to sell and could sell to  India, but I suspect that the Indian economy is quite adept at producing widgets of its own and probably at quite a low cost. If the Indians are going to buy anything from us, they will buy services—services are about people; they are people-to-people businesses—and the Indians will naturally say, “Well, we’ll do you a deal, but it has to involve the movement of people.” All hon. Members will need to think about the downstream consequences of that and about how our constituents might respond. Such an agreement would be perfectly reasonable, but this is a much bigger question.

Paul Farrelly: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in drafting and moving all these new clauses. Does he remember that when the Prime Minister visited India, the No. 1 topic on the Indians’ agenda was relaxing our immigration rules? How does that square with the Prime Minister’s immigration targets and her ambitions on Brexit?

Chris Leslie: We are due imminently to see the immigration Bill—the Minister will tell us exactly when it will be introduced to Parliament—and the draft agreement that the Secretary of State for International Trade has drawn up with the Indian Government, and we will be able to make a judgment on that at that point.

Ian Murray: Before my hon. Friend moves away from India, may I draw his attention to the Scotch whisky industry? I am sure we will all partake of some of that industry’s goods during the next few weeks of the festive period. The Scotch whisky industry has flourished on the basis of free trade deals done through the EU, such as the one with Korea, but this Government are planning to walk away from those 57 EU bilateral trade agreements and try to reach free trade agreements with countries such as India, which will want to maintain its 150% tariff on Scotch whisky.

Chris Leslie: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes his point well. The idea is that we should turn a blind eye to the trading arrangements we have with our nearest neighbours—50% of our markets—in pursuit, as an alternative or substitute, of some deal with far-flung countries a lot further away, but Australia accounts for 2% or 3% of our current trade and a deal with Australia will not offset many of these problems. It is not just the 50% that we have directly with our nearest neighbours. All those free trade agreements that the European Union has worked up and signed, to which we have been a party, over the past 40 years add up to a further 14% of our trade. So going on for two thirds of our trade is tied into the customs union process—36 bilateral free trade agreements with 63 different countries. How shall we ensure that they continue the day after we exit?

John Baron: rose—

Chris Leslie: I will not give way; other Members want to speak.
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade has said, “These can be grandfathered; they can be cut and pasted and we will just sort all those out,” and junior Ministers at the Department for International Trade have said in the past,  “Those countries have all agreed to roll them over.” That is not the case. Maybe a bit of dialogue has begun, but those other countries might want to take the opportunity to reopen some of those long-standing agreements—who knows? The Minister will give us the answers when he winds up the debate.

John Baron: rose—

Chris Leslie: I want to conclude my remarks because others want to speak. I simply want to make a final point about why the customs union is such a crucial issue, and why I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and hon. Members across the House to think about the consequences of not staying in the customs union.
If this country ends up with hard borders again, there will be big consequences. Our ports could grind to a halt. Lorries will clog up our motorways, with, potentially, vast lorry parks near the ports. The expensive, wasteful spending on bureaucratic checks will hurt our industries, and we ought to be evaluating the economic impact of industries, potentially, gradually relocating elsewhere because it is easier to do business in a different jurisdiction. Think of the jobs lost, particularly in the manufacturing sector, if we get this wrong. Bear in mind that we will not have any say on what happens on the EU side of the border after this whole process. There is no guarantee about what happens at the other end of the channel tunnel or in Calais.
The reason I have pushed new clause 13 as I have, is to do with the austerity that we risk in this country for the next decade—a decade of Brexit austerity that will potentially befall many of our constituents because of the lost revenues. Unless we stay in the single market and the customs union, we will have that austerity on our conscience, and I urge hon. Members, especially all my hon. Friends, to think very seriously. We have to make sure we stay in the customs union.

Oliver Letwin: It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is like a vintage wine—it improves with age as one hears it on repeated occasions, with mild variations.

Helen Goodman: A bit like yours.

Oliver Letwin: Well actually, oddly enough, I intend, as previously in Committee, to attend to one of the amendments—in fact, two—rather than to the general question of whether it is a good idea to leave the EU. I want in particular to speak about amendment 400—a Government amendment now—and amendment 381, the original Government amendment to which it relates, in a sort of package.
There has been a certain amount of confusion in discussion of the amendments in public—although not, I hope, in the House—so I first want to make it quite clear what they do and can do and what they do not and cannot. The issue has often been reported as if it relates to the question of when we withdraw from the EU, which is very interesting but nothing to do with the amendments. Neither is it anything to do with the Bill, because withdrawal from the EU, as all hon. Members present know, is governed by the article 50 process, not by an Act of Parliament. If we could wave a wand and  decide how we do these things through an Act of Parliament, how much easier that would be; but there is an article 50 process that is part of international law, to which we subscribe, and that is what will determine when we leave the EU.
What do the amendments do? They govern when clause 1 will become operative. Clause 1 repeals the European Communities Act 1972 and Government amendment 381 sets a date for that. That leads to a question. If the UK Government and the EU, according to the processes laid out by article 50 and by the remainder of the constitutional arrangements of the EU, come to some kind of agreement at a certain point, it would make sense to have a little more time than is allowed under the first clause of the article 50 process. Under the third clause of the article 50 process, we would have an odd situation, because there would be a slight delay in the timing of our withdrawal, where we would still, under amendment 381, be locked into abolishing the 1972 Act on a certain date, namely by 11 pm on 29 March 2019. There would therefore be an odd conflict of laws that obviously could not be allowed to persist.
Incidentally, there would then be perfectly obvious remedy: under Government amendment 400 there would be a need for emergency primary legislation to change the date. That is, of course, perfectly possible and I have no doubt the House and the other place would agree to such a measure, but it is a laborious process and it might jam up the works at just the moment when it is very important for the Government to have the flexibility to make an agreement of that sort. So, very modestly, all Government amendment 400 does is to provide for the ability of Parliament to adjust the date under those circumstances for the repeal of the European Communities Act to match the article 50 process.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the very careful way in which he is setting this out. I hope he would agree that this is a much more commodious and confluent way than was previously the case. It will mean that article 50 and our domestic law are in better synchronisation. If I may, I pay tribute to him and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for working on this amendment and for coming up with a very happy solution to a thorny problem.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, to the many right hon. and hon. Friends who signed up to the amendment and, above all, to the Government for turning it into a Government amendment.

Pat McFadden: If the European Communities Act 1972 is abolished on 29 March 2019 and that is the legal basis for following the European Union’s rules at the moment, what does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the legal basis for following the European Union’s rules during the transition period?

Oliver Letwin: That is a very interesting question, to which we will know the answer when we have seen the text of the agreements that lead to the withdrawal and implementation Bill and when Parliament accepts it. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I maintain steadfastly the effort to use the Committee stage of this Bill to speak about this Bill, this clause and this amendment, and not some extraneous consideration.

Helen Goodman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: I will, but it will be for the last time, because I want to bring my remarks to a close. I do not want to detain the Committee for long.

Helen Goodman: We have heard many times from Conservative Members that the date of 29 March 2019 cannot be moved because we have triggered article 50 and the process has a two-year limit. Will the right hon. Gentleman set out for the Committee what he thinks would happen in practice if the powers under amendment 400 were used by the Government?

Oliver Letwin: I am surprised by the hon. Lady. I have known her a very long time and I know she is extremely assiduous and very intelligent, so she will have read article 50 and observed that it contains an express provision for agreement between the EU and in this case the UK to delay the date which would otherwise pertain. In fact, there are also rules for what is required on the EU side by way of unanimity to permit that to occur. There is no question, therefore, of the Government ever having asserted that they could not change the article 50 date; they have always said and known that it is possible to change it. The question, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said a moment ago, is how we make sure that UK law marches in step with whatever happens under the article 50 process.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I trouble my right hon. Friend?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is so important in these proceedings that I will give way to him, but then I really am going to stop taking interventions and finish.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do apologise. I did not want to trouble my right hon. Friend, but the two-year timeframe under the article 50 process is a deadline, not the point at which we necessarily leave; it is the point at which we leave in the event that no deal is reached beforehand. It is perfectly possible, should the negotiations go well, for an earlier date to be agreed.

Oliver Letwin: Oh, my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that is of course the way that article 50 works. My point was merely that it also provides in the event that the opposite occurs—the negotiations take even longer than anticipated, or the negotiations come to an end but ratification takes a bit longer than anticipated, which could well happen—for an agreement to be reached to extend the date, which is what would then cause the incommensurability with UK law, unless we have adequate provision on the UK side. That is what amendment 400, to which, I am pleased to say, he is a signatory, provides for.
I want to say one more thing before I sit down. I am glad—I hope that the Minister will confirm this from the Dispatch Box—that the Government have said throughout this discussion that they will bring forward an amendment to make sure that the statutory instrument that might be triggered under amendment 400 would be under the affirmative procedure, although I think that the amendment will have to be tabled on Report because of how Bill proceedings work.

Steven Baker: I am happy to tell the Committee that that is the case, as I shall confirm later.

Oliver Letwin: I am delighted by that. It is important to people on both sides of the arguments that it be something that Parliament can do, not that Ministers may simply do on their own. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my south western neighbour at the end of the Bench, very much agrees with that proposition, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in the middle.

Dominic Grieve: I just want to thank my right hon. Friend for having intervened in this matter and found a way to resolve the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just pointed out, the oddity of the original amendment 381 was that it would have imposed a rather serious obstacle if, for any reason, there had been an agreement for the article 50 period to end earlier.

Oliver Letwin: That is right. My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset have always actually maintained the same point, which is that we need to keep the two sets of law in sync with one another. That is the overriding purpose of the whole Bill: to ensure that UK law matches what is happening in the international law arena and that we then import the whole of EU law into UK law for the starting point of our future.

Helen Goodman: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to take any further interventions. I am going to sit down in a second. I only want to say that I am profoundly grateful, not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have joined us in this amendment, but to the Government. This is exactly the way to deal with these things: find a sensible compromise that brings everyone on the Government Benches together and makes the Opposition entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Paul Blomfield: It is, on this occasion, a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was at his erudite best in critiquing Government amendment 381, echoing many of the points the Opposition made on day one of the Committee stage. It was also very helpful that he spoke so clearly on the flexibility provided in the article 50 process, in contrast with the remarks he directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) who made exactly that point only last week. It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman moving on.
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 to 45 and 349, which are tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me, however, turn first to Government amendment 381, which revives, on this last day of the Committee stage, the issues that we debated on the first. The two solitary names on the amendment say everything about its purpose: the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), neither of whom is  present. We are seeing an alliance between the Government and, on this issue, one of their most troublesome Back Benchers.
As I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset made clear, it is not as though the amendment adds anything to the withdrawal negotiations. Indeed, it hampers the process. It is just another example of the Government’s throwing red meat to the more extreme Brexiteers on their Benches. As we said on day one, the amendment is not serious legislation. It is a gimmick, and it is a reckless one—in relation not just to the flexibility on the departure date to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but to the wider aspects of exiting. It reaches out to those who want to unpick the Prime Minister’s Florence speech and the basis for a transitional period.
Setting exit day “for all purposes” as one date means the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice at the point at which we leave the European Union. As we warned the Government, that would make a deal with the EU on the transitional period impossible. We also warned the Government that they could not deliver the support of the Committee of the whole House for the amendment, and that was confirmed by the tabling on Friday of amendments 399 to 405. Just as the Government have caught up with the Labour party on the need for a transitional period, by cobbling together this compromise in the face of defeat they have caught up with us on the need for flexibility on exit days for different purposes. The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the Government have caught up with themselves. The Bill as originally drafted did not include amendment 381. The Government have recognised that it is nonsense, and are seeking to find a way out. We will go for the more straightforward way by seeking to vote it down.
Amendments 399 to 405 give Ministers the power to set exit day through secondary legislation. We would give that power directly to Parliament, for all the reasons that we set out last week. We will therefore support amendments 386 and 387, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) along with members of five parties, and new clause new clause 54, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, he tabled it helpfully to allow the Government to embed the Prime Minister’s Florence commitments in the Bill.
Let me now deal with our amendment 43 and consequential amendments 44 and 45. On Wednesday evening, Parliament sent a clear message to the Government: we will not be sidelined in the Brexit process. The passing of amendment 7 was a significant step in clawing back the excessive powers that the Government are attempting to grant themselves through the Bill, and in upholding our parliamentary democracy. As with the final deal, Parliament must have control over the length and terms of the transitional period, and our amendments would provide that. The Prime Minister has eventually recognised that she was tying her hands behind her back with her exit day amendment, but amendments 399 to 405 are not the solution. They simply loosen the legislative straitjacket that the Government unnecessarily put on themselves. The Government must respect the House and accept that Parliament, not Ministers, should set the terms and length of a transitional period.
As I said in our earlier discussion this afternoon, there is a clear majority in this House for a sensible approach to Brexit and to the transitional arrangements. That brings together business and the trade unions and many other voices outside this place, just as it brings together Members on both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister knows we are right on the transitional arrangements, as her Florence speech made clear:
“As I said in my speech at Lancaster house a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU…So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”.
But every time she reaches out for common sense, and tries to bring the country together and to build the deep and special partnership she talks about, the extreme Brexiteers step in, trying to unpick our commitments, and setting new red lines, whether on the Court of Justice or regulatory divergence, which they know will derail the negotiations and deliver the complete rupture they dream of. So the transitional arrangements, which are important both for the interim and in positioning us for our longer term future, must be in the hands of this Parliament.

Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that services are so important to our economy that if we want to negotiate something that has not been negotiated before, it is likely to take far longer than two years?

Paul Blomfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why it is so important that we give ourselves the flexibility on exit dates and in relation to the transitional period.
Our amendment 349 seeks clarification from the Government—I am looking at the Minister as I make this point—that they do not intend to use delegated powers to create criminal offences of a seriousness that carry custodial sentences. I hope the Minister will in his remarks state that that is not their intention, and if that is the case will he indicate now that the Government will give a commitment to amend the Bill accordingly on Report?
Let me turn now to some of the other amendments currently under consideration. We support many of the other new clauses that seek reports aiding transparency and good evidence-based decision making. New clauses 31 and 33, for example, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raise important issues for children’s welfare. New clause 44 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) requires an independent evaluation of the impact of this legislation on the health and social care sector, which we would also support. Others, such as new clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) helpfully seek to ensure that we do not fall behind the standards and protections we currently enjoy as they develop in the EU. We would support that, as we would new clause 56 on protecting the existing rights a person in Gibraltar can exercise in the UK as a result of our common membership of the EU; we will support that new clause if pushed to a vote by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Amendments 102 and 103 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) are right in seeking to limit the use of delegated powers  in Bills other than this one, past or future, to modify EU retained law. That is a vital component of keeping the scope of delegated powers in check.
On that point, we have over the past few days seen a timely reminder of why we have opposed the extent of the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. The Government might wax lyrical about wanting to preserve workers’ rights, but in reality too many Members on the Conservative Benches—although I accept not all—cannot wait to get started on dismantling them. The contempt for the working time directive we have seen over the last few days is not a revelation: 20 of the 23 members of the current Cabinet have opposed that directive. The Foreign Secretary has made no secret of his view that the key rights that the directive provides represent “back-breaking” regulation. The International Trade Secretary has described them as a “burden”. The Prime Minister went further when she damned the whole social chapter as a “burden on business”.
Barely a week after the conclusion of the phase 1 negotiations, reports indicate that the Government are already champing at the bit to scrap vital protections for workers, including the 48-hour week, four weeks’ paid annual leave and rest breaks. On Monday, the Prime Minister refused eight times to guarantee that the working time directive would not be scrapped when it moved into UK law. She happily confirmed that the directive would be transposed into UK law on day one, but frankly, it is not day one that we are worried about: it is day two and all the days thereafter. She stopped short of giving any guarantees for the future. We will return to this matter on Report to ensure that those Conservative Members who look forward to the opportunity to scrap workers’ rights and many other protections have to come to Parliament to be held to account for that, rather than using delegated powers to push the measures through by stealth.
As we come to the final stages of these debates in Committee, we have an opportunity to reassert that this House will not be sidelined in the most important negotiations facing this country in our lifetime, not because of some obscure constitutional argument but because we are a representative democracy and it is our job in this place to defend the rights and interests of our constituents. This Parliament will not allow those who want to crash out of the EU at any cost to have their way. We will put people’s jobs and livelihoods first. We will ensure that the values and rights that we have forged in 43 years of EU membership are not discarded as we leave, and we should ensure that we remain close to our friends and partners on the continent that we will continue to share.

Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and it was also a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) opening it. He will not be surprised to hear that I entirely share many of his views about the merits of staying in the customs union, and the lack of advantage of leaving it. However, there is a time and place for everything. The customs union and the merits or otherwise of the single market are all matters that the House will have to debate in due course. In the meantime, we will have to see what the Government come up with in the negotiations,  and what they return to the House with at the end of them, but I do not intend to get bogged down in that this afternoon.

Tom Brake: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: I will give way in a moment.
I made it quite clear on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill relates to process, not outcome, and I have tried really rigorously to confine my remarks to the process issue, although the extent to which people have kept interpreting my concerns about process as an intention to sabotage our leaving the EU altogether, which I have never at any stage sought to do, is remarkable. I will now give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that I want to get on to the meat of this subject, rather than talking about those other matters.

Tom Brake: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about focusing on process rather than outcome, but does he agree that given that Cabinet Ministers are now sitting down to discuss the outcome, it would be helpful for Parliament also to use the opportunities available to us to express our views about what the outcome should be?

Dominic Grieve: Parliament should certainly be debating these matters. Individual Members will decide whether they want to use the opportunity of this Committee stage for that purpose, but I want to confine myself strictly to the issues in front of us.

Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. and learned Friend has been consistent all the way through our consideration of this Bill in agreeing with me on only the subjects of process, rather than substance, but I quite respect his view and always have the highest respect for his legal and political skills. Does he agree that if amendments actually went beyond the Bill, they would have been ruled to be beyond the scope of the Bill? It is entirely a voluntary decision on his part that he refuses to be drawn into the substance of Government policy, or the stance that the Government are taking on the eve of their starting the first serious negotiations on our future after we withdraw. It is a pity that he has made this self-sacrificing concession.

Dominic Grieve: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Yes, it is a self-denying ordinance, but it was taken for what I think is a good reason, and partly because I did not wish to inflame the debate into something more general. However, despite my best endeavours and making speeches of what I thought was studied moderation, I seem to have been singularly unsuccessful, but that is merely a reflection of the fevered atmosphere in which this Committee meets.
I have to accept that I did raise the temperature a bit on amendment 381, because when it was first presented to the Committee, I expressed myself in respect of it in very strong terms indeed. I did so not because I was making some statement that I refused to contemplate the day of exit as being 29 March 2019 at 11 pm, but  because I considered that to introduce that date into the Bill as a tablet of stone made absolutely no sense at all for the very reason that I sought to highlight in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). In actual fact, that amendment would make it harder to move the date forward if we had wish to do so at the conclusion of the negotiations, because that would require a statute. I know that statutes can be implemented quite quickly in this House, but that process would nevertheless take significantly longer than the alternative. I could not see why we were losing the sensible flexibility provided by the way in which the Bill was originally drafted.
Underlying all this, there appears to be a sort of neurosis abroad that the magical date might somehow not be reached or, if it were to be reached, might be moved back. I am afraid that I cannot fully understand that neurosis of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is there nevertheless. It may give them some comfort to have in the Bill this statement of the obvious. However, it is worth bearing in mind that we are leaving on 29 March 2019 as a result of the article 50 process, unless the time is extended under that process, and we are doing so as a matter of international law even if the European Communities Act 1972 were to survive for some mistaken reason, which would cause legal chaos and put us in a very bad place.
In order to try to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends and to give out the message that this is a process Bill, I am prepared to go along with things now that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) have so sensibly and creatively come up with a solution that appears to provide what my hon. Friends want and, at the same time, removes what I consider, perhaps in my lawyerly way, to be an undesirable incoherence in the legislation.

George Freeman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for making so eloquently the point about the importance of process as the best defence of our liberties. Will he join me in welcoming the work that assiduous junior Ministers have done for their Secretary of State with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in agreeing a package of amendments that I am happy to put my name to and vote for tonight, along with amendment 381? As he mentioned tidings of comfort, it seems at this Christmas moment that not since the soldiers met on no man’s land to sing “Silent Night” has peace broken out at such an opportune moment.

Dominic Grieve: I am filled with my hon. Friend’s Christmas spirit, and very much wish that it may be carried through to the new year, and for many years to come. For that reason, I am prepared to support the Government on amendment 381, on the obvious condition that we have the other amendment, and with the assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), that we will get the necessary further change on Report to make the matter subject to the affirmative procedure. I fully understand why we cannot have that today—it is too late. We should have acted earlier if we wanted to get that into the Bill during Committee.
I want to put on record an argument that was made to me against this course of action: what we are doing has an impact on clause 9, as amended by my amendment 7. The intention behind amendment 7, which the House voted for, was always that the powers in the Bill for removal should not be used until after the final statute had been approved. That included the power to fix exit date. As a consequence of the amendments before us, those powers are removed from the ambit of clause 9, and therefore have a stand-alone quality that could mean that they could be invoked by making the date earlier than 29 March—so early that we would not have considered and implemented the statute approving exit. Some have expressed concern to me about that.
I have given the matter careful thought, and while I understand those concerns, they appear unrealistic. It would be extraordinary if we were in such a state of chaos that a Government—I am not sure which Government, or who would be the Ministers in government—decided to take that course of action in breach of our international obligations to our EU partners, because that is what that would involve. In truth, that would still involve getting an affirmative resolution of the House, hence the assurance that we needed from my hon. Friend the Minister, and this House would be most unlikely to give permission for such a chaotic outcome. I wanted to respond to what others, including individuals outside the House, had represented to me, but we should not lose sleep over that aspect of the matter. In truth, my amendment 7 was never aimed at exit day. It was aimed at the other powers that the Government might wish to start using before a withdrawal agreement had been approved.
I had an amendment 6, which was about multiple exit days, but that issue has been resolved, so the amendment can be safely forgotten about. I also had amendment 11, which dealt with whether retained EU law was to be treated as primary or secondary for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. My hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench know very well that that is part and parcel of a wider issue that we have debated on many occasions. I have chucked the ball—delicately, I hope—into their court to see how they respond to some of the many anxieties expressed by Members on both sides of the House about how fundamental rights that are derived from EU law that I think most people now take for granted can be safeguarded properly. I look forward very much to hearing a little more about that on Report.
I want to bring my remarks to a close. I am personally delighted that the problem that I could see coming down the track has been so neatly averted by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon.

Stephen Gethins: I would like to speak to new clauses 44 and 56, in my colleagues’ names. New clause 56 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is on an issue raised with the Prime Minister today. Gibraltar voted by 96% to remain in the European Union—an even higher figure than for those who voted remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That vote clearly reflected the people of Gibraltar’s concern to protect the rights that they have acquired since joining the EU with the UK in 1973.
Gibraltarians need their border to be kept fluid, so that commerce can thrive and so that residents, workers and tourists can continue to pass through a border that should have only proportionate controls and reasonable checks. It is fair to say that they are not asking for anything from the UK that they have not had to date, and it is right that they should be given a firm, formally enshrined legal guarantee to add confidence for industries and commerce. The right of a person from or established in Gibraltar to provide services into the UK, where that right existed immediately before exit day as a result of the UK and Gibraltar’s common membership of the EU, should continue. There is strong cross-party support and, building on the Prime Minister’s comments earlier, I hope the Minister will touch on it in his summing up.
New clause 44, in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—she will be keen to talk about this—was tabled in co-operation with Camphill Scotland. Its “Report of the key findings of the survey on the potential impact of BREXIT on Camphill in Scotland” highlights the significant impact that leaving the European Union could have on the health and social care sector.
New clause 44 would require the UK Government to make arrangements for an independent evaluation of the impact of legislation on the health and social care sector. I know the Minister will want to address that later. The person undertaking the evaluation would be required to consult the Scottish Government and other relevant persons, given the nature of some of the responsibilities. Such an evaluation is vital to help shape and inform long-term planning and the design and delivery of services in the health and social care sectors across the UK in the post-Brexit era. Other devolved Administrations will be affected, too.
SNP amendments 219 to 221 are designed to protect Scotland’s businesses from the impact of leaving the EU by requiring—the Minister will like this—the publication of an impact assessment before exiting the EU. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is in his place, and since I raised this with him in October 2016, when he told me there were 51 sectoral assessments, the Department will have been working hard on them for more than a year. We very much look forward to seeing more detail following their year-long work. Of course, that was promised to the Scottish Government, too.
Other Members who have touched on this have not actually gone to look at the impact assessments we were promised. When I turned up, all my electronic devices were taken away from me and two officials sat over my shoulder as I read. I thought that the nuclear codes might be in there somewhere, but I was sadly mistaken. I am not entirely sure what all the security was for. Eighteen months after the EU referendum, we still do not have something on the economic implications that can be published. Given the security, given the fuss and given the time that Ministers have had, I was pretty underwhelmed by what I read.

Patrick Grady: I had a similar experience to my hon. Friend. I delved into these documents with great excitement only to find it was clear from them all—I do not think we are allowed to quote directly, lest we be struck down  by lightning—that they do not contain anything that is either commercially sensitive or sensitive to the negotiations, so why do not the Government just put them all in the public domain?

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree. Having had a look at these assessments, I am not entirely sure what the fuss is about. As we undergo the biggest economic and constitutional upheaval since the end of the war, we have a flimsy report covering 39 industries, not 51, as I was told more than a year ago. The information I have seen would be pretty accessible to the public, and it strikes me that the only reason we have not seen the assessments is that this is a Government who do not know what they are doing, who have not done their homework and who are prepared to drag us and the industries into the abyss. It strikes me that this is more to do with internal Conservative party feuding and less to do with our economy.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps another explanation for all the rigmarole surrounding access to these reports is that the Government want to give the impression that they have actually done a huge amount of work? That is a Trumpian way to describe the amount of effort that has gone into producing these assessments, but, in fact, when we turned up to look at the assessments, they were nothing more than a damp squib and nothing more than could be found by googling for five minutes.

Stephen Gethins: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Huge efforts have gone into covering up these assessments and the fact that this is a flimsy job indeed. The point I was making again highlights why we need to protect our place in the single market. That is the primary concern for businesses that benefit from it, and it was not on the ballot. Vote leave did make a number of promises, one of them being that Scotland would get power over immigration. That would help towards ensuring that Scotland could remain part of the single market. What Scottish National party Members have said is that we are still open to compromise. We have tabled new clause 45 and are clear that the Act must in no way give the UK Government a green light to drag the UK out of the single market—that was never on the ballot, and we have to be clear on that. We were promised powers over immigration and that would go a long way, if the UK does not want to take our compromise as a whole, to Scotland remaining part of the single market. We also support new clause 9, which would have the same effect.
We are about to spend £40 billion for a worse deal with the European Union, at a time when a Tory Government are cutting public services across the UK. Let me touch briefly on a second referendum. We think that people should have a right to look at the outcome of the negotiation. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Liberal Democrat calls for another referendum. However, I say to our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the spirit of friendship that the immediate challenge must be for us to work together and help the UK stay in the single market and customs union. That is the compromise we have suggested. It is not my preferred option—my preferred option would be for Scotland to  remain part of the EU—but that is the nature of compromise; we all have a little bit of give and take in this process.
It should be said, however, that a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal will be difficult to resist if the uncertainty around negotiations persists. Any second referendum must not replicate the 2016 campaign, and it is essential that Scotland’s constitutional place is protected in a second referendum. We do not want to be in circumstances where we are dragged out against our will for a second time.

Wera Hobhouse: Of course this is not going to be a second referendum. I want to clarify once and for all that it is the language of the other side to say that we want a second referendum; we want a referendum on the deal—on what is going to be negotiated. It will be a confirmation—an update—of what the people have said, because only the people can end what they have started. That can be dealt with only through a referendum.

Stephen Gethins: I have enormous sympathy for the hon. Lady’s position and what she says, but the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU and we are concerned that there would be no recognition of Scotland’s place in any subsequent deal, and we want to leave open, even at this late stage, the possibility of seeking a compromise. We all have a responsibility in this House to do that.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this would not be a second referendum? People are saying, “This isn’t what I voted for.” They voted to go out in principle. They were told they would get more money, but they are getting less money. They may get restricted market access. They have a right to vote on the terms of the deal. This is quite separate from whether they in principle wanted to go out. Surely, he should think again about this, and rather than just banking his previous result for Scotland, he should think of the UK.

Stephen Gethins: I am glad the hon. Gentleman referred to the previous result for Scotland, because one thing the Prime Minister and the Conservatives are doing is pushing up support for the EU among Scots; the latest opinion poll has us at 68%, so the figure getting higher all the time. He makes a good point, but I think we must compromise. This Government need to compromise not just with the DUP, but with the other political parties in this place. They can talk about a pan-UK approach, but that does not mean merely seeking a deal between the Conservatives, who have slipped to third place in opinion polls in Scotland, and the DUP, which, with great respect, represents only Northern Ireland.
I will gladly give way to a Minister on this next point if one can give us some information. The Secretary of State for Scotland told the House—I think, in response to points made by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) about his unhappiness with some of the Bill, and I am glad that he made them—that the Government would table further amendments on the devolution process. I will gladly give way to Ministers if they want to give us some clarity on what the Secretary of State said. Given that this is the final day in Committee, I would happily give them that. I am not sure whether they have been speaking to the Secretary of State or whether he caught them unawares, but it is the final day  and we would like some more detail. That Ministers are silent tells us that, with respect to the devolution process, the Bill and the Government’s organisation fall far short of where we should be 18 months on from the referendum.
I am glad that other Members have tabled amendments with which we agree. New clause 46 would require the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to carry out a public consultation within
“six months of the passing of this Act”
to assess the impact the exit deal on workers’ rights.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) mentioned earlier, new clause 8 would maintain a role for local authorities by replicating the Committee of the Regions, the role of which is to give a voice to local areas and protect the principle of subsidiarity—something about which the UK Government could well learn from our European colleagues.
New clause 28 would maintain environmental principles, while new clause 31 deals with the promotion of the safety and welfare of children and young people after exit.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) tabled new clause 32, which addresses the fate of UK programmes that benefit from the European social fund. EU funds currently contribute to efforts to address inequalities in Scotland, with the European social fund having contributed £250 million to the Scottish economy between 2007 and 2013. Will the Minister tell us whether similar funds will be coming to Scotland after we have left the EU?
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also tabled new clause 33, which would commit the Government to assess every year whether rates of benefits and tax credits are maintaining their value in real terms against a backdrop of rising inflation as a direct consequence of our leaving the EU.
New clause 59, on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, would allow professionals to continue to have UK qualifications recognised across the EU. That is vital for our economy.
New clause 77 is very important, as it deals with co-operation with the EU on violence against women and girls. The new clauses and amendments I have addressed underline the progress that we have made as members of the EU and the value of pooling and sharing sovereignty.
As it is day 8, I shall share this reflection. I have been absolutely astonished at times by some people’s lack of understanding of the EU and its decision-making process, at the failure at times to grasp the differences between institutions such as the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament and at the failure to grasp the fact that sovereignty rests with the member state and always has done.
The Bill takes away the sovereignty that we shared with our partners and with the devolved Administrations —it even takes from Parliament the sovereignty that is so dear to so many Members—and gives so many powers to the Executive. Without knowing fully what happens, we are handing back control to an Executive who will not publish details of what leaving means. Even within Parliament, we are bringing back control—to borrow a phrase—to the House of Commons and the  House of Lords, which will have more say about this process than the democratically elected devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Just think about that for one moment. We are giving the House of Lords more control over this process than democratically elected Parliaments and more powers to more unelected bureaucrats. That is absolutely shameful.
Let me conclude. The EU has been a force for good in working together on workers’ rights, climate change, education and research. What a waste to throw it all away to Brexiteers who are not even bothering to make the case for what comes next. All along, we have talked about the kind of country that we want to see in the future. Is it one that pursues isolation, economic decline and a retreat from the progress that we have made? I want to see a Scotland, and indeed a United Kingdom, where we pool and share sovereignty and are true to our European ideals that have built peace and prosperity and advanced our rights and opportunities for young people. This Government are building a Britain fit for the 1950s; we want to see a Scotland that is fit for the 2050s.

Steven Baker: I rise on this eighth day of eight to propose that clauses 14 and 15, 18 and 19 and schedules 6, 8 and 9 stand part of the Bill.
Over the course of the eight days of debate, we have had almost 500 amendments tabled and more than 30 separate Divisions. I am very happy that, in this section of the debate today, the amendments under consideration run to just 39 pages.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I did want to make a serious point.

Dominic Grieve: This is a serious point.

Steven Baker: May I make my serious point first, and then give way?
It is sometimes said of this House that it does not scrutinise legislation well and that we send Bills to the other place in a mess. On this occasion, on this historic Bill, I think that the House of Commons has shown itself equal to the task of scrutinising important constitutional legislation. With that, I will very gladly give way.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. What I wanted to say was that, at the start, there was some disquiet over the timetable motion, and, actually, the Government responded positively on that. The evidence suggests to me that, in fact, the timetable has matched the scope of the amendments that we have had to consider, and that is greatly to the credit of the Government that that has happened, and I am very grateful to him for it.

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. For all the fire and smoke that we have had over the course of this debate, there has been quite a lot of consensus.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: No, I wish to move on to my next point.
On this point about consensus, the Government have listened and responded to constructive challenge from all parts of the House. Earlier in the process, the Government tabled amendments to set a single exit day in the Bill, to which I will return. We tabled an amendment to provide extra information about equalities impacts and the changes being made to retained EU law under the powers in the Bill. We have announced the intention to bring forward separate primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period in due course. We published a right-by-right analysis of the charter of fundamental rights, and we have made it clear that we are willing to look again at some of the technical detail of how the Bill deals with general principles to ensure that we are taking an approach that can command the support of Parliament.
Finally on this point, the Government have listened to representations set out during debate on day six, and indeed on Second Reading, and have accepted the Procedure Committee’s amendments to establish a sifting committee. We fully recognise the role of Parliament in scrutinising the Bill and have been clear throughout that we are taking a pragmatic approach to this vital piece of legislation. Where MPs and peers can improve the Bill, we will work with them.

Stephen Gethins: rose—

Steven Baker: Before I move on to the specific clauses and schedules, I will give way just very briefly.

Stephen Gethins: The Minister is being very generous. It would be very useful to Members on the SNP Benches if, during his speech, he set out even in principle some of the amendments that were promised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Steven Baker: As the hon. Gentleman should know, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General promised a Report stage, and we will indeed have that Report stage and we look forward to it.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Steven Baker: I will give way to the hon. Lady; she has been so patient.

Wera Hobhouse: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is generous. As a new MP, I must say that I am very surprised about how little constructive dialogue there has been. In fact, the comment that those on the Government Benches could deal with all of this without having to deal with the Opposition was alarming. We are all here to make constructive comments, to improve the Bill and to make compromises. The comments that they could deal with it all without having to listen to the Opposition or to have constructive dialogue were both alarming and disappointing.

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady reminds me of how much I miss the days of coalition on some occasions.
The clauses and schedules that we are debating in this final group contain a number of detailed, necessary and technical provisions. In many cases, they are standard provisions that one would expect to see in any Bill.
Clause 14 is a technical and standard provision that sets out important definitions of many key terms that appear throughout the Bill, such as “EU tertiary legislation” and “EU entity”, and clarifies how other references in the Bill are to be read. Clause 15 complements clause 14, setting out in one place where the key terms used throughout the Bill are defined and noting where amendments to the Interpretation Act 1978 are made under schedule 8. Together, clauses 14 and 15 will aid comprehension of the Bill.
Clause 18 provides that the Bill will apply to the whole UK. In addition, because the European Communities Act 1972 currently extends to the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar in a limited way, the repeal of that Act must similarly extend to those jurisdictions to the extent that it applies to them. The Bill also repeals three Acts that extend to Gibraltar, all of which relate to European parliamentary elections. The powers in clauses 7 and 17 can be used to make provision for Gibraltar as a consequence of these repeals. The approach in clause 18 has been agreed with the Governments of Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar in line with usual practice.

Bob Neill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Steven Baker: Well, I am going return to the subject of Gibraltar at considerable length later. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to continue.
As is typical with all Bills, clause 19 sets out which parts of the Act will commence immediately at Royal Assent, and provides a power for Ministers to commence other provisions at different times by regulations. Schedule 6 is linked to clause 3, which we debated on day two in Committee. That clause converts into domestic law direct EU legislation as it operates at the moment immediately before we leave the EU. There are, however, some EU instruments that have never applied in the UK—for example, instruments in respect of the euro and measures in the area of freedom, security and justice in which the UK chose not to participate. It would obviously be nonsense to convert these measures into domestic law after we leave, so these exempt EU instruments, to which clause 3 will not apply, are described in schedule 6.
Hon. Members will know that consequential provisions are a standard part of many Acts in order to deal with the effects of the Act across the statute book. Equally, transitional provisions are a standard way in which to smooth the application of a change in the UK statute book. Schedule 8 makes detailed and technical provisions of this nature, all of which are necessary and support the smooth operation of other crucial provisions set out elsewhere in the Bill. It clarifies what will happen to ambulatory references—I will return to this topic—to EU instruments after exit day, makes consequential and necessary amendments to other Acts, and makes transitional provision in relation to the establishment of retained EU law and the exceptions to it. Finally, schedule 9 sets out additional and necessary repeals as a consequence of our exit from the EU.

Paul Farrelly: During the Minister’s course through the amendments, has he perhaps noticed new clause 54, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member  for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) following the Prime Minister’s Florence speech? If he has noticed it, what does he think of it?

Steven Baker: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am only just beginning to conclude my opening remarks—I am only eight minutes in. I will come to the new clause in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) a little later. I will not rush on this occasion.
I turn to amendments 399 to 405 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin); I am grateful to him for tabling them. I also pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and, if I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who I understand has worked hard behind the scenes to create consensus for these amendments. These amendments are closely linked to amendments 6, 43, 44 and 45, which were discussed on the first day in Committee, and Government amendments 381 to 383.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019 at the conclusion of the article 50 process. The Government have recognised the uncertainty that many people felt as to whether the exit day appointed by this Bill would correspond to the day that the UK leaves the EU at the end of the article 50 process, and that is why we brought forward our own amendments setting out when exit day will be. The purpose of our amendments is straightforward: we want to be clear when exit day is and, in the process, to provide as much certainty as we can to all. In the course of that, we want to align domestic legislation to the international position, as has been set out.
Amendments 399 to 405 build on and complement the Government amendments setting exit day. We have always said that we would listen to the concerns of the House, as we have done throughout the Bill’s passage. As part of that, the Government have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and we are grateful that he tabled his amendments. They provide the Government with the technical ability to amend the date, but only if the UK and the EU unanimously decide to change the date at which treaties cease to apply to the UK, as set out in article 50.
Only one exit day can be set for the purposes of the Bill, and any statutory instrument amending exit day will be subject to the affirmative procedure. As I said in an intervention, we will bring forward an amendment on Report to make this requirement clear on the face of the Bill.

Helen Goodman: Could the Minister set out for the whole Committee—not just the Conservative Members sitting behind him—what will happen if the legislation provided for in amendment 7, which we passed last week, is not passed? The Minister, using amendment 381—whether or not it is itself amended by amendment 400—will still have the power to set the exit date and withdraw, irrespective of what has gone on. Is that not right?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady is trying to pre-empt some of my remarks. If she will bear with me, I will come to that.
A crucial point is that the Bill does not determine whether the UK leaves the EU; that is a matter of international law under the article 50 process. However, it is important that we have the same position in UK law that is reflected in European Union treaty law. That is why the Government have signed these amendments, and I was glad to do so.
I can assure the Committee we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said many times, we and the EU are planning on the UK leaving the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March 2019.

Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to the Committee for having had to be in the Liaison Committee for the last couple of hours and for missing much of the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for accepting these compromise amendments. The Government are, in fact, accepting a very significant limitation on the powers they had in the original draft of the Bill. If we are interested in the sovereignty of Parliament, we are interested in limiting the room for Government to set arbitrary dates without any controls over them whatever. That is what existed in the Bill before. There is now proper control by Parliament of the date in the Bill.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would also like to say thank you to him for the role he has played in bridging the spectrum of opinion on this issue.

Helen Goodman: How can it be right to tell the House that the exit date is being set by the House, when the amendments give the power to the Executive to set the exit date?

Steven Baker: It is an interesting question that the hon. Lady asks, but how does she think that exit day would be set by the House? If it is not set on the face of the Bill and immovable other than by primary legislation, it must be set in secondary legislation. I would have thought that that was plain to the hon. Lady. We have done the right and pragmatic thing, which is to align UK law with the international treaty position. That enjoys wide support across a spectrum of opinion, and I am glad to support these amendments in the way I have set out.
Let me turn to the issue of the customs union, and I particularly noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said about it. The issue has been widely aired, and I do not intend to be tempted into a broader debate on trade policy. We are confident that we will negotiate a deep and special partnership with the EU, spanning a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security. Businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU, so we are seeking a time-limited implementation period during which access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms. During this implementation period, EU nationals will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK, but there will be a registration system. The details of the implementation period are of course a matter for negotiations, and we have been clear that we will bring forward the necessary implementing legislation in due course. However, it would not be right  to sign up now to membership of the customs union and the single market pending the outcome of negotiations, as new clause 52 would have us do.
New clause 13 goes further and seeks for the UK to remain a full member of the customs union in perpetuity. We are not seeking to remain a member of the customs union or the single market. We will be seeking an arrangement that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. We want this to include a new, mutually beneficial customs agreement with the EU, and we want to see zero tariffs on trading goods, and to minimise the regulatory and market access barriers for both goods and services. In any event, it simply is not possible for provisions in domestic legislation to have binding effect at the international level. We will leave the customs union when we leave the EU. Domestic legislation cannot implement unilaterally what would require international agreement.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister, and the Prime Minister for that matter, repeatedly say that businesses will only have to plan for one set of changes. Given that businesses currently benefit from being part of the single market and the customs union, how can it possibly be the case, as the Prime Minister has also said, that we are coming out of the customs union and the single market during the so-called implementation period?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady tempts me to dilate on the details of the implementation period, which are to be negotiated, but that is not my purpose today, because it is not the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to deliver a functioning statute book as we leave the European Union.
With that in mind, I turn to new clauses 10 and 54 on the transitional or implementation period. Both new clauses seek to impose conditions on what form the implementation period the Government are seeking will take. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for his new clause, which attempts to write the PM’s vision for an implementation period into statute. That would be a novel constitutional change. Nevertheless, I welcome it in the sense that it is a ringing endorsement of Government policy. New clause 10, however, differs in some key regards from our vision.
The Government cannot accept these new clauses. The Prime Minister has set out a proposal that is now subject to negotiation. We are confident of reaching that agreement, but it would not be sensible for the Government to constrain themselves domestically in any way while those negotiations continue. We are making good progress, and it is in our mutual interests to conclude a good agreement that works for everyone. We do not want to put the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse.

Kenneth Clarke: In referring to the transitional or the implementation period, my hon. Friend has at various times used phrases straight out of the Florence speech, and he has accepted that the new clause in my name is identical to stated Government policy on the subject. In  what way does it restrain the Government’s position to put their own policy in the Bill and ask the Prime Minister, as the new clause does, to seek to attain that which she has declared to be her objective? That is not a genuine reason for rejecting it. He is rejecting it because agreeing with the Florence speech still upsets some of our more hard-line Eurosceptics both inside and outside the Government.

Steven Baker: I pick up my right hon. and learned Friend on a couple of things. First, he has used the word “identical”—I did not use it because I have not taken the time to go through his new clause absolutely word for word to check his work.

Paul Blomfield: You haven’t read it!

Steven Baker: Of course I have read it—it is here in my hand. I have read it but I have not gone back and done his homework for him to check and mark his work.
I make two points to my right hon. and learned Friend. First, as I said, it would be a constitutional innovation to begin putting statements of policy for negotiations in legislation. That is a good reason not to accept the new clause. The second point—[Interruption.] He says that it is not a good reason. He is the Father of the House and he has occupied many of the great offices of state. I would be interested to know when, in his long and distinguished career, he accepted that principle in legislation.

Kenneth Clarke: I have never previously seen members of the Government debate a clear exposition of Government policy from the moment it is first announced. That gives rise to serious doubts about exactly what the Government are going to pursue in the transition deal, and these exceptional and unprecedented circumstances are doing harm to Britain’s position. I cannot see what harm would be done by giving the approval of the whole House to the Government’s stated objectives in the Bill. The fact that it has not been done before is not an argument against it; it answers a situation that has not happened before, either.

Steven Baker: My right hon. and learned Friend has caught himself in a contradiction. In this exchange, he has rested his argument on knowing exactly what the Government’s policy is, but in his last intervention he said that he did not know what it was.
My second point concerns subsection (2) of my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause—[Interruption.] I would just like to make this point. The subsection states:
“No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.”
That would cause a problem if the new clause were accepted and we reached the point at which the treaties no longer applied to the United Kingdom. We would have legal chaos—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) talked about this earlier—if we had not commenced this Bill when the treaties ceased to apply. For both those reasons, we simply could not accept the new clause.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Steven Baker: There is a sudden flurry of interest in this point. I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), and then I will move on. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”]

Frank Field: Ah! They are like spoiled children, aren’t they?
Is not another objection, if not the real objection, to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that it is the sort of point that should have been made in a Second Reading debate? We have two days for Report and Third Reading. That may be a stage at which the Government wish to look at these things, and it might be a time for huge innovation. Now is not the time to take Second Reading points, which could be dealt with later in the whole proceedings.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I gave way because he has tabled relevant amendments about exit day. I hope that today he will feel able to support the Government’s set of related amendments.

Chris Leslie: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I will not give way now, because I have been on my feet for 22 minutes, and there are, I think, 53 amendments and new clauses to deal with. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
I turn to the long series of amendments that are designed, in one way or another, to oblige the Government to publish reports or assessments on specific areas or issues, some in advance of exit day. They are new clauses 31 to 33, 40 to 44, 46, 47, 71, 72, 82, 84 and 85, and amendments 85, 86 and 219 to 221. It is in no one’s interest for the Government to provide a running commentary on the wide range of analysis that they are doing until it is ready to support the parliamentary process in the established way. All the amendments and new clauses I have mentioned share one common flaw. Ministers have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that would expose our negotiating position. The amendments and new clauses risk doing precisely that. I commend the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is in his place. I thought that his speech was an interesting reflection of his own experience.
The risks and difficulties are easily illustrated by looking at some of the specific reports that are called for. New clause 42 asks for a report on severance payments for employees of EU agencies, but that is not a matter for the UK Government. The right to severance pay is a matter for the EU agencies, although we hope and expect that they would honour any relevant commitments to their employees.
New clause 48 calls for a strategy for the certification of UK and EU medical devices by UK bodies so that the UK can maintain a close co-operative relationship with the EU in the field of medicines regulation. That is of course our aim: we intend such a strategy to form a key part of our deep and special future partnership with the EU.
New clause 71, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), seeks to require a Minister to report before exit day on the  Government’s progress in negotiating mutual market access for financial and professional services. I understand his motivations in wanting this information to be published. We are working to reach an agreement on the final deal in good time before we leave the EU in March 2019.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Steven Baker: I want to complete my argument, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who tabled this new clause.
We are seeking an economic partnership that will be both comprehensive and ambitious. It should be of greater scope and ambition than any previous agreement so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies, such as financial and professional services. We are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership as this will to be to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU. We will approach the negotiations in this constructive spirit.
I want to provide reassurance to my hon. Friend on his new clause 72, which seeks to ensure that any ministerial power to charge fees in respect of inspections of imported food and animal feed is exercised in a way that ensures full cost recovery for public authorities.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Steven Baker: Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I want to respond on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
I would like to persuade my hon. Friend that his new clause 72 is not necessary. First, there is already sufficient statutory provision to ensure that the cost of mandatory veterinary checks on food and animal feed, on their importation, are fully recoverable. The arrangements for setting inspection fees for imported food and animal feed vary according to the type of inspection. All imports of products of animal origin must be inspected by a port health authority at a border inspection post. For high-risk products not of animal origin, these checks are carried out by a port health authority at a designated point of entry. Broadly speaking, these checks must be satisfactorily completed before a consignment is released for free circulation.
EC regulation No. 882/2004 on official controls, together with supporting domestic legislation—for England, it takes the form of the Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2009—provides the legal basis for charges in respect of these inspections. The Bill will convert that EC regulation into UK legislation. The nature of the charges that the port health authority can make depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the food or animal feed being imported and its point of origin.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for going into such detail on the basis for charging. May I mention that the other purpose behind new clause 72, which is a probing amendment, is to remind the Government of the importance of seeking in our negotiating objectives—no more and no less than that—a continued form of mutual recognition, if at all possible, for checks on food and feed?

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He will know that, under the WTO foundations of the world trading system, there are arrangements for the mutual recognition of sanitary and phytosanitary checks and other matters.
The second point I should make about my hon. Friend’s new clause 72 is that, in relation to any new inspections that may be required after the UK leaves the EU, the Government are considering what controls or surveillance will be required on imported food once we have left the EU. Where Ministers decide to introduce statutory inspection fees, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the approach to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Where port authorities undertake additional checks on food, on its importation into the UK, for which there is not a statutory charge, decisions will continue to be taken on the basis of the need to balance costs between general and local taxation. We consider that the Government must remain free to set fees and charges in a manner that reflects these considerations. I hope that this provides my hon. Friend with sufficient reassurance.
Finally, on a separate issue, my hon. Friend asked earlier in our debates whether courts would be able to consider all material in relation to retained EU law when deciding such legislation’s meaning and effect. I am happy to confirm that this is the position under the Bill. The Government will place a letter in the Library of the House setting this out in more detail, and I am putting that on the record now to enable us to do so.

Bob Neill: I am grateful for that assurance. There is just one other matter on which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give me a like reassurance, on private contract matters.

Steven Baker: I will. I am about halfway through my remarks. I will come to that.

Anna Soubry: I wonder whether the Minister could be quite clear at the Dispatch Box and give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that now we have voted—as we did last week—for amendment 7, the Government will not at any stage now bring forward any measure that in any way undermines the vote of this House on amendment 7, and that Parliament will have a meaningful vote, as we voted for last Wednesday.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I admit, I thought she was going to ask me about the matters before me. That is a matter to be considered on Report, were we to return to it. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Opposition Members were shouting me down there for a moment. Were we to return to it, it would be a matter for Report, not for today. The Government’s policy is as we set out in the written ministerial statement, and of course we are a Government—[Interruption.] No, certainly not. We are a Government who of course obey the law. Parliament has voted and the law would currently be set out as on the face of the Bill.

Stephen Doughty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steven Baker: I am really not going to take more interventions on this matter, because as I—

Ian Murray: rose—

Steven Baker: No, I really am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman; I insist.
I turn now to amendment 102, which removes provisions that enable existing powers to amend retained direct EU legislation, and amendment 103, removing provisions that enable future powers by default to amend retained EU legislation. These amendments are linked to amendments that we have already debated on day 2 of the Committee, and I do not plan to repeat all those arguments.

Ian Murray: rose—

Steven Baker: I will make the argument on this point. We maintain that it is absolutely right and necessary for existing domestic powers granted by Parliament in other Acts to be able to operate on retained direct EU legislation, which will become domestic law. Fettering these powers would prevent important and necessary updates being made to our law, where that is within the scope and limitations of the powers and Parliament’s will. Similarly, it is important that future delegated powers created after exit day should be able to modify retained direct EU legislation, so far as applicable. This provides important clarity on the status of retained EU law and how it will interact with these powers. Further, where it is appropriate to do so, future powers can of course still be prohibited from amending retained direct EU legislation.

Ian Murray: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I will, if it is on that set of amendments.

Ian Murray: It is very relevant to the amendments that the Minister is currently running through, because the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee, has refused to fully commit to abiding by amendment 7, agreed to by this House last week. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that, because if he is rowing back on that commitment he is essentially undermining many of the amendments he is running through at the moment—the one from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in particular.

Steven Baker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and I try to say this as gently as possible and in the spirit of Christmas, is that when I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield talking about certain colleagues of a Eurosceptic persuasion, I hope he will not mind me reminding the House that he gave an articulation of—I think he used the word neurosis.

Dominic Grieve: indicated assent.

Steven Baker: He says that he did. I think we need to recognise that as a Government we are trying to make this Bill work, and we have throughout the Bill’s passage worked closely with the House, listened closely to the concerns—

Anna Soubry: No you haven’t.

Steven Baker: It is a matter of fact that we have stood at this Dispatch Box, we have accepted amendments and we have moved forward with the House on this Bill, accepting amendments and shaping the Bill to comply with the will of the House. I very much regret—

Ian Murray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steven Baker: No. I very much regret that on the occasion that is being referred to, we were not able to reach an accommodation, but the Bill is as it currently stands.

Ian Murray: rose—

Steven Baker: I will not take any more interventions on this point, which is not pertaining to the clauses before us.

Anna Soubry: We all know what’s happening

Steven Baker: I do take objection—[Interruption.] I do take objection, because what we are going to do is move forward with the Bill as it stands, with the set of concessions that we have included within it, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to accept the good faith of the Government.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Steven Baker: I am really not going to any more on this point.
Amendments 11 and 380 relate to the treatment of direct EU law for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this point, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, is related to his other concerns. The amendments concern the status of retained EU law, in this case specifically the status of retained direct EU legislation under clause 3 for the purpose of challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let me be clear from the outset that all legislation brought across will of course be susceptible to challenge under the HRA. Hon. Members will, however, understand that the remedies available under the Act differ for primary and subordinate legislation. It is therefore important that the Bill is absolutely clear on this point. Paragraph 19 of schedule 8 is clear. It sets out that this converted EU law is to be treated as primary legislation for the purposes of the 1998 Act, with the result that it will be open to the courts, if that legislation is challenged, to consider whether the legislation is compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights, and, if they conclude otherwise, to make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA.
The amendments, by contrast, would assign the status of subordinate legislation for the purposes of HRA challenges, meaning that a successful challenge could, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield knows, result in a strike-down of the legislation. The Government considered this point very carefully before we introduced the Bill. We recognised the potential arguments that, for example, detailed and technical EU tertiary legislation is more akin to our domestic secondary legislation. We are also, of course, alive to the concerns that this law must be properly challengeable. We concluded on balance, however, that assigning primary status to converted law for these purposes was the better course for three principal reasons.
First, this law comes into our domestic statute book in a unique way, but fundamentally Parliament will have chosen to bring each and all of these pieces of legislation into our law by primary legislation, albeit indirectly through the Bill. Contrary to the position for subordinate legislation, there will have been no exercise of discretion by an individual Minister. In that sense, converted EU law is more akin to primary legislation.
Secondly, if the law could be struck down by the courts, we would risk undermining the certainty the Bill is seeking to provide. None of this legislation can be challenged in UK courts now and some of it has been on the statute book for decades. Opening it up to being struck down is an invitation to challenge law which has long been settled, and to refight the battles of the past in the hope that a different court will return a different verdict.

Dominic Grieve: Of the three points the Minister has made, the latter is without doubt the one that has the greatest force. It is worth bearing in mind that it highlights the fact of the supremacy of EU law, which is being preserved for the purposes of retained EU law. That, if I may say so, is a good reason why he should listen carefully to what I said about people being able to invoke general principles of EU law in order to challenge its operation. All these matters are interconnected.

Steven Baker: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know he is going to take this matter up further with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. I did actually just make two points, but perhaps I structured them ambiguously.
The third point is that in the event of a strike-down there would be no existing power under which fresh regulations could be brought forward, so it would be necessary to bring forward a fresh Act of Parliament or to rely on the remedial order-making power within the HRA itself. I should say that the remedial order-making power within the HRA was not designed to be the default means by which incompatible legislation is remedied or to deal with the policy changes that could be required.
The remedial order-making power may only be used if there are compelling reasons for doing so and it is targeted at removing the identified incompatibility. If wider policy change were needed following a finding of incompatibility, a fresh Act of Parliament would be the only means of doing that and we could be left with damaging holes in the statute book unless and until such an Act was passed. That is why the Government concluded that converted EU law should have the status of primary legislation in relation to the HRA, and that is why the Government will not be able to accept the two amendments.

Bernard Jenkin: I wish to pick up on the important point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister clarify that it is not the Government’s intention to set up retained EU law in UK statute in a manner that would encourage a UK court to strike down another primary statute? If that is the intention, may I suggest it might be something the Government will have to look at?

Steven Baker: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has just confirmed to me that we do not want that to happen. I am sure that that will be given further consideration, along with the issue of general principles that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has raised.

Heidi Alexander: rose—

Steven Baker: I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really will move on.

Heidi Alexander: I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s stream of thought and taking him back to his response to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), but can he rule out, from the Dispatch Box today, returning to amendment 7 on Report?

Steven Baker: I refer to the answer I gave earlier. At this point, I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not expecting to return to it, but we are reflecting on the implications of the amendment. We made a strong case for the powers at the Dispatch Box and are reflecting on it. I say to her, however, and to my right hon. and learned Friend that we are not expecting at this point to return to it. [Interruption.] She asks what that means. We have been in close conversation with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I feel sure that those conversations will continue, but I say to the rest of the Committee that I am going to focus on the amendments before me.

Paul Farrelly: rose—

Steven Baker: If it is on this point, I will not answer the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Farrelly: It is indeed on this point. Some of the Minister’s right hon. and hon.—and courageous—Friends from last week have, in good faith, signed amendment 400 this evening. Given that he is refusing to guarantee that the Government will stick to the letter and the spirit of amendment 7, they might feel that they are being led up the garden path.

Steven Baker: I did say that I would not answer the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help saying that I do not remember him complimenting me when I have—occasionally—found myself in the other Lobby.

John Redwood: Will the Minister confirm that Parliament is going to have its way? We will have a vote on any agreement, and it will then need primary legislation—the most intense scrutiny of all—to put it through. That, surely, is a major win for those who wanted that approach. I am quite happy with that. That is what amendment 7 leaves us with. Will he confirm that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny, debate and legislation on an agreement?

Steven Baker: Yes, I will confirm that of course there will be full parliamentary scrutiny. One of the things that is bringing me great joy, particularly at Christmas, is the extent of parliamentary unity on this point of parliamentary sovereignty. One reason so many of us campaigned to leave the EU is that we wanted our voters to have a choice over who governed the UK in as many matters as conceivable.
I do not wish to revisit the arguments around amendment 7. I wish rather to conclude my consideration of the issue before us.

Ian Murray: rose—

Steven Baker: I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman come in on this point, which we have dealt with.
I emphasise again that our approach does not immunise converted law from HRA challenges. If an incompatibility were to be found, it places the matter in the hands of Parliament to resolve, without creating a legal vacuum in the interim. This approach strikes the right balance  and recognises that supremacy of Parliament. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has wider concerns regarding the rights of challenge after exit, including, in particular, where these are based on the general principles of EU law. I am happy to repeat the commitment made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General earlier that we are willing to look again at the technical detail of how certain legal challenges based on the general principles of EU law might work after exit. We will bring forward amendments on Report to address this, and we are happy to continue to discuss these concerns with him.

Dominic Grieve: That is a very sensible approach on these matters, and I am very grateful to the Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for taking it forward. As for the other matter that has floated into our discussion, and which I have studiously avoided getting drawn into, I would simply recommend that, on the whole, kicking hornets’ nests is not a very good idea.

Steven Baker: It is ironic that my right hon. and learned Friend and I should be constituency neighbours, and, if I may say so—and as we put on the record on a previous day—friends. It is also ironic that our other Buckinghamshire neighbours have swapped one rebel commander for another. But I think I should move on: I have kicked enough hornets’ nests myself for one day.
Amendment 291 relates to greater parliamentary control over tertiary legislation. As was established during our debates on clause 7 and schedule 7, any statutory instrument transferring or creating such powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would need to be satisfied with the nature of the power and any procedure attached to it. To provide further reassurance, the normal requirement to produce impact assessments will apply, as appropriate, whenever we replace, abolish or modify functions, including legislative functions. Our amendment 391 will require Ministers, before tabling statutory instruments under the main powers in the Bill, to make various statements explaining the changes that are being made, including any delegations. I assure Members that when considering a transfer or modification of tertiary legislative functions, they will be able to have a fully informed debate before voting on the SIs that make the changes.
Let me now deal with the issue of rights in Gibraltar and new clause 56. Let there be no mistake: we are steadfast in our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy. Both the EU and the UK have been clear about the fact that the implementation period will be agreed under article 50, and will be part of the withdrawal agreement. Both sides have also been clear about the fact that Gibraltar is covered by the withdrawal agreement and our article 50 exit negotiations.
In legislating for the United Kingdom, the Bill seeks to maintain, whenever practical, the rights and responsibilities that exist in our law at the moment of leaving the EU, and the rights in the UK of those established in Gibraltar are no exception to that. We respect Gibraltar’s own legislative competence, and the fact that it has its own degree of autonomy and responsibilities. That means that it will produce its own equivalent legislation. Indeed, we are committed to  fully involving Gibraltar as we prepare for negotiations to leave, to ensure that its priorities are taken properly into account. We are working closely with Gibraltar on that, through, for instance, the dedicated Joint Ministerial Council on Gibraltar EU Negotiations.
The Bill, however, is not the place for legislation on Gibraltar. It does not extend to Gibraltar except in one minor way, namely that by virtue of clause 18(3) the powers in clauses 7 and 17 can be used to amend European parliamentary elections legislation that extends to Gibraltar. I understand, though, the concerns that have been expressed in the amendment. I hope that, in response to them, I can reassure the Committee that Gibraltar’s access to the UK market is already protected by law, and that it is the UK Government’s unshakeable objective to ensure the seamless continuation of existing market access to the UK and enhance it where possible. In financial services, where UK-Gibraltar trade is deepest, that is granted by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Gibraltar) Order 2001, on the basis of Gibraltar’s participation in EU structures.
We acknowledge the need to introduce a new legislative framework with which to maintain UK market access provided by the Gibraltar order. It is likely that amendment of that order will be necessary to ensure that it continues to function as intended after EU withdrawal. We consider that this is a better way of maintaining Gibraltar’s access to the UK market than the proposed amendment.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, particularly in the light of recent press reports of attempts by the Spanish Government to exclude Gibraltar from the transition and end-state process. It is important for the Government to make that clear commitment, subject, of course, to the existence of the proper regulatory equivalents and standards. If the Minister will give me an undertaking that that will happen with the full involvement of Gibraltar’s Government, I think that those of us who supported the amendment will be satisfied.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive reaction to our amendment. The situation is as I have described it: our unshakeable objective is to secure the seamless continuation of existing market access to the UK, and to enhance it where possible.

Ian Paisley Jnr: This is the one amendment that would probably have attracted support from the Democratic Unionists, but, because of the assurances the Minister has given—and, importantly, the assurances the Prime Minister gave even today at the Dispatch Box—we feel relieved for Gibraltar’s sake. Is the Minister essentially saying that the protections he is now affording to Gibraltar effectively mean it will not be treated in any way differently from any other part of the United Kingdom?

Steven Baker: The position is as I have set out, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in all the circumstances, I stick to that position. I hope that he will understand the strength of our commitment from that. We will deliver on our assurances that Gibraltar businesses will enjoy continued access to the UK market, based on the Gibraltar authorities having already agreed to maintain full regulatory alignment with the UK.

Peter Grant: I have no doubt that the people and Government of Gibraltar will be grateful for the Minister’s assurances, but the wording of this amendment intends to make sure with 100% certainty that, even inadvertently, nothing in the Bill can damage the interests of the people of Gibraltar. Can the Minister tell us with absolute certainty that if this amendment is not added to the Bill, there is nothing in the Bill that will cause that damage? Assurances, objectives and promises are good, but can he say with absolute certainty that nothing in the Bill will ever damage or prejudice the interests of the people of Gibraltar?

Steven Baker: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that this Bill extends to Gibraltar only in the way I have set out: the Government’s policy is as I have indicated to him, and we remain steadfastly committed to the interests of Gibraltar.
I turn now to the REACH regulation, new clause 61. We will use the powers in this Bill to convert current EU chemicals law, including REACH, into domestic law. That will mean that the standards established by REACH will continue to apply in the UK. I believe that that renders new clause 61 unnecessary.
On custodial sentences and amendment 349, the scope to create criminal offences in the Bill is restricted so the powers cannot be used to create an offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years. It might, however, be necessary to create criminal offences in certain circumstances, for example offences related to functions that are to be transferred from EU bodies to UK bodies which would be lost without the ability to recreate offences relating to functions then held at a UK level. To lose the offence, and therefore the threat of a sanction, would remove what could be seen as important protections in our law, and for that reason we are not able to support the amendment.
I turn now to amendment 362 on the issue of ambulatory references. I hope the Committee will bear with me on the final, technical section of this speech. The amendment concerns paragraph 1 of schedule 8, which deals with the ambulatory references in our domestic law, as well as EU instruments and other documents in EU legislation that will be retained under clause 3. At present, the ambulatory cross-references update automatically when the EU instrument referred to is amended. After exit day, the Bill provides that such references will instead be read as references to the retained EU law version of the instrument, which, unless the contrary intention appears, will update when the retained instrument is modified by domestic law. This is necessary in order to prevent post-exit changes to EU law from flowing automatically into UK law. It would not be appropriate for the reference to continue to point to the EU version of the instrument after we have left the EU.
The approach set out in the Bill will be applied in relation to ambulatory references within any enactment, retained direct EU legislation, and any document relating to them. I understand that this last provision—the reference to documents and whether or not that includes contracts—has concerned my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). The Government are alive to concerns that we should not unduly disturb the operation of private contracts, or prevent parties to a contract from being able to give effect to their intentions. We are happy to explore this  issue further with my hon. Friend and interested parties, to ensure that we achieve the appropriate balance between clarity and flexibility.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for their frank and helpful response in this matter. This issue was raised by the City of London Corporation and the International Regulatory Strategy Group. I thank the Minister for his assurance that he will continue to work with them, and look forward to that. I am satisfied, for these purposes, that the issue is being addressed.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and I look forward to working with him on this issue.
In conclusion, Sir David—

John Baron: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I will give way one last time.

John Baron: May I briefly take the Minister back to amendments 381 and 400? I thank him for his kind words about amendment 400, and for his work on the Bill. He will know that I did not put my name to amendment 381, but I will support amendment 400 so long as that power will be used only in extremis and for the shortest possible time. We have had an assurance on that from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today, and I know that those on the Government Front Bench have taken that on board, but if there is any dissension on this, it would be nice to know about it now.

Steven Baker: Perhaps my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I gave my assurance on this earlier. I am happy to repeat it. I can assure the House that we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained that earlier.

Ian Murray: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I did say that that was the last time I would give way, and I think it is now time for me to—[Interruption.] Yes, it is Christmas, and it is in the spirit of seasonal brevity that I would like to turn to the issue of thanks.
I should first like to thank the Committee for its diligent and well-informed scrutiny of this, the first Bill that I have piloted through Parliament. I am an engineer, not a pilot, however, so perhaps I could be said to have guided it through Parliament. It has been my pleasure to do so. I should like to thank you, Sir David, for your chairmanship, and I thank Dame Rosie, Mrs Laing, the other Sir David, Mr Hanson and Mr Streeter for theirs. It has been a pleasure to serve under all your chairmanships. I should also like to thank the Bill ministerial team, whose advice, support and guidance have been absolutely indispensable.
I should like to thank the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the Parliamentary Secretary,  Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and of course the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). It would be wrong of me to omit the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who unfortunately is not in his place. His occasional guidance to the entire team has been invaluable, and has always been followed.
Finally, and most importantly, I should like to thank all the officials in the Department for Exiting the European Union and beyond who have so diligently risen to the enormous task of dealing with the scrutiny of the Bill. They have guided and assisted Ministers in the preparation of their remarks and they have responded to every query, from the House and from Ministers. We could not possibly have asked for more from them, and they could not have responded more professionally or more energetically. We can be extremely proud of all of the officials who have supported the Bill, as we wish them all a merry Christmas.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David, and it is also a pleasure to follow the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I pay tribute to his calmness and tolerance in taking a very difficult Bill through to this stage. I was around when the Maastricht Bill was going through Parliament, and the way in which he has handled this one is a real tribute to him.
I do not always agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but I agreed with him when he said that the Bill was about process. I am afraid that, perhaps because we have had eight days in Committee, we have widened our debate into areas that should not necessarily have been discussed today. We have rehashed quite a lot of the debate on the referendum. For me, this is a simple Bill about repealing the European Communities Act 1972.
I welcome the fact that there is now general agreement across the House about the date. I am pleased that it will be set out in the Bill because unlike a lot of Members here, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I do not really trust the EU. I therefore always worry that if we are not absolutely clear about what we are doing, the EU will manage to move things, because it would like to delay the process and punish us as much as possible for taking the brave decision to leave. When we look at what we are discussing, we are simply asking to leave the EU. The British people originally voted for a formal economic agreement, but for 40 years we have seen entanglement and legal procedures getting into our country, and we are now having to go through all this to leave.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Parliament appeared to be dragging its feet on leaving the EU when a majority of the people decided that we should leave, the people would get frustrated with Parliament? We have to remember their wishes.

Kate Hoey: I agree. One of the good things about the Minister is that he is not a lawyer, which is perhaps why he has been able to treat this matter with quite a lot of  common sense. The debate has been rather taken over by lawyers and lawyer speak, and it is pretty clear that they love things being so technical.

Paul Farrelly: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: I will give way once to my hon. Friend, who is not a lawyer.

Paul Farrelly: I am certainly not a lawyer. Would my hon. Friend care to explain to the House why she felt unable to support amendment 7 last week? Was it perhaps because, as well as not trusting the EU, she does not trust this House?

Kate Hoey: I certainly trust this House but, to be honest, many of the people who were pushing that amendment saw it as a way of delaying things before we got into the detail of getting an agreement. I did not get called to speak during the debate on amendment 7, but I will not go back over that amendment.

Frank Field: Is it not—[Interruption.] Yes, I am sorry, but I have got in again. One of the truths that we have to bear in mind—people on the outside will remember this even if people on the inside wish to deny it—is that from very word go, according to the great Guardian record of the European experiment, the great fear was that we the British people could not be told where this journey was taking us. Those of us who wanted a date and a time—even a British time—were concerned that large numbers of people throughout our whole history of being in the European Union have never been straight with the British people about where the journey was ending.

Kate Hoey: I have been clear since the day that I came into this House that I wanted us to get out of the European Union, and I am just delighted that I have lived long enough to see it happen.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Lady has been totally consistent year after year in opposing EU encroachment on British laws. However, there has been not a chirp recently from some of the Members who supported amendment 7. They oppose European encroachment on our sovereignty, but they were very happy to raise some feigned hope about parliamentary sovereignty.

Kate Hoey: There is a lot in that.

Albert Owen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: No, I will not give way at the moment.
Look at all the different EU regulations and the ways in which the EU has encroached on our country’s rules over the years. Majority voting has meant that we have occasionally been outvoted, and we have therefore been unable to do things that we wanted to do. When we decided that we wanted to leave, it was clear that the EU felt that we had no right to make that decision, which is why it wants to delay and delay.

Stephen Gethins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: No, not at the moment.
My worry about amendment 7 is what the EU have done before with countries that have voted against something that they did not want. As we get nearer the   end, if we do not have an agreement, it will of course be in the EU’s interests to delay if it knows that this Parliament is just waiting to allow more time, and we will therefore just be paying in more and more money. I have a problem even—

Anna McMorrin: This is absolute nonsense.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend may think that I am talking absolute nonsense, but 17.5 million people out there do not.
Let me get back to my reason for speaking today: I oppose new clause 13, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), and I want to explain why we must leave the customs union. I am very pleased that our Front Benchers have made no remarks about us supporting the new clause, and I certainly will vote against it tonight.

Albert Owen: rose—

Kate Hoey: People voted to leave for all sorts of reasons, but—

Anna McMorrin: Take the intervention!

Kate Hoey: I can see. I do not need to be told what to do by my hon. Friend; I have been here quite a long time.
It is very clear that if we stay in the customs union, we cannot cut the kind of free trade deals that we want with the over 80% of the world’s economy that will be outside the EU once we have left. That is not what the British people voted for. They voted to leave for different reasons, but underlying everything for all of them was our getting back the ability to make decisions about what we want to do and who we want to trade with.

Albert Owen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend is very kind and nice, I give way.

Albert Owen: Does my hon. Friend not understand the significance of the June election? The Prime Minister called the election to improve her majority, but it was reduced. That was a game changer in many ways. Many Labour Members increased their majority, including, I think, my hon. Friend.

Kate Hoey: Members who read this year’s Labour manifesto—it was very readable—will know that it was very clear that we had accepted the result, that the British people wanted to leave, and that we were going to leave the customs union and the single market. For once in my life, I am not the rebel on the Labour Benches; the rebels are sitting on my right. I genuinely cannot understand how progressive people who believe in equality, fairness and justice can support—

Stephen Gethins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: No, I am not giving way anymore, because a lot of people want to speak.
The reality is that a customs union actually penalises countless people in some of the world’s poorest countries. It prevents them from selling their goods in Europe, but doing so would help them to develop and mechanise. After this change, we can make our own decisions about  how we treat countries, particularly in the Commonwealth, where there are millions of people who have shown huge loyalty and dedication to this country over the years. We betrayed them when we joined the Common Market. Many people in this Chamber did not have a say in that, but we now have the opportunity to pay back. I think that some 80% of the tariffs paid by UK consumers on imports from outside the EU are sent to Brussels, although British shoppers are having to pay more on a range of imports. There is so much more that we could do, because the UK is the only large country in the European Union that does more trade beyond the EU than within it.

Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: No, thank you.
We are disproportionately penalised by the common external tariff, so we are actually suffering from being part of the customs union, although it might have helped at one stage. In the future, we have to look outwards and globally. Of course, we cannot sign free trade agreements until we leave. I personally want us to be able to sign and apply them during the implementation period. Let us not forget that everything that the EU says we must do during the implementation period is up for negotiation. We have to be very clear about this: during those two years, we want to be able to go ahead and do the things that we left the European Union to do. We should not completely align ourselves with every dot and comma of EU legislation.
What has upset me most in this debate—a lot of it has come from my own party, but it has also come from the Conservative party—is the negativity about this whole issue that somehow says that we are such an unimportant, small country that leaving the European Union will destroy us for the rest of our lives and destroy our country’s economic future. That is just so wrong.
I believe that we need more optimism. During its existence, the EU has shown real contempt for national Parliaments and their political activities. It has shown real contempt for electorates. It showed real contempt by forcing the Greek Prime Minister out of his job and through its enforcement of huge, huge cuts on Ireland. The EU does not tolerate the political independence and democratic integrity of the modern European nation, and we should know that in this Parliament. When we talk of parliamentary democracy, let us not forget just how many years we have lived without true parliamentary democracy in this country.
I believe that we should be optimistic. We should not see this as some people—perhaps even some members of the Government—seem to see it: as almost a burden that we have to get through as we say, “Yes, we are leaving, and it is a terrible pity, but we are going to make it work just about.” I want us to be optimistic and to be out there saying, “This can work. This can be great.” We are a great country, so let us get on with it. I am delighted that we have got through this Committee stage.

Kenneth Clarke: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who represents the part of London in which I live when I am down here  working in the House of Commons. We do not agree on this subject. During the debates on this Bill, she has voted with the Government almost as many times as I have voted against the Government. We are going neck and neck, which has been the position between us for the very many years we have both been in this House. We have diametrically different views.
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s description of the European Union. In our 45 years of membership, it has helped us to become a more significant political force in the world in looking out for our interests, and it has been one of the fundamental bases of our giving ourselves a modern, successful economy, but this is not the time for a general debate.
I speak to new clause 54, which I tabled in co-operation with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). The new clause has been signed by a number of Members from both the major parties in this House. As I said in an earlier intervention, compared with the debates on other things, it should be quite easy to get this amendment passed because we drafted it to be entirely consistent with stated Government policy.
New clause 54 seeks to insert the policies set out in the Prime Minister’s Florence speech into the Bill, thereby including that part of what we have so far achieved by way of clear policy, so we can proceed further with the full approval of this House. I know perfectly well that the Minister who drew the short straw of answering today’s debates would immediately turn to some interesting, original and rather obscure arguments why this new clause should not be accepted, which has been the pattern throughout our eight days in Committee.
There have been hardly any concessions of principle. When issues of great moment have been debated, it has been unusual for a Minister to be allowed to engage with that principle. What happens is that a very long brief is delivered, some of it quite essential—this is not a criticism of either the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), or other Ministers, and I do not envy the role in which they find themselves of holding the line on this Bill—in which a Minister goes into tremendous legalistic, administrative and even constitutional niceties without actually debating the subject.
We have already talked about amendment 7, which was passed against the Government. The amendment was all about whether this House should have a meaningful vote on the agreement before the Government bind themselves to it. The Minister on that occasion, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), never joined the debate about a meaningful vote. Indeed, today’s Minister would not when he was drawn into going back into where we are on amendment 7. All kinds of bizarre arguments were produced on why it was not suitable to put this in the Bill, and the House had to assert that it is not going to allow this Government to commit themselves to things that will be of huge importance to future generations, probably affecting our political and trading position in the world for many decades to come, without their first getting approval from this House of Commons for whatever it is they want to sign up to. New clause 54 is an attempt to minimise the risk of that happening again.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I recall the Minister asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman to list, after all his 47 years’ experience in this House, one occasion when he, a former Minister, would have put into the Bill what he is suggesting the Government should have put into the Bill. He could not claw anything back from his memory banks to that effect. Surely, what this Minister has said in the arguments he has put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman has completely dismantled new clause 54.

Kenneth Clarke: Parliament will have an opportunity to give its assent to the Government’s approach to the transition deal, which they are on the point of trying to negotiate over the next few weeks. I have never known a Government go into an international agreement and start negotiating something towards a conclusion without giving the House the opportunity to express its views and without subjecting themselves to the judgment of the House on the objectives they are declaring.
This transition deal—I think that this is agreed on all sides—is probably going to be agreed in the next month. We are about to go away for Christmas. Everybody is hoping we will have a clearer idea of the transition or implementation deal by the end of January. As things stand, I do not think this House has ever discussed this—it has never had a debate on the subject. No motion has been put before this House to approve what the Government are seeking to do. If the Government have their way, we are simply going to discover, when they come back from the next step in the negotiations, what exactly they have signed up to.
The reason it is important that we should put down this marker is that I want to stick with what was set out in Florence, which was a Government policy position. At this moment—over the course of this week—the Cabinet is having a discussion. There is an attempt to keep this secret, but, unfortunately, leaks are coming out in all directions, and I sympathise with the Prime Minister on that. The Cabinet is debating whether everyone is prepared to be bound by the Florence speech or whether some of its members want to reopen it and start modifying it. That is why this new clause is a chance to say that if that be the case, the overwhelming majority of Members confirm and approve what was set out in the Florence speech.
I hope that we will not see the extraordinary spectacle of the fear of right-wing Eurosceptics meaning that such lengths are gone to that the Government put a three-line whip on their Ministers and all their Back Benchers to cast a vote against the Florence speech, so that some room is left for them to be able to negotiate further with the Environment Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or whoever it is wanting to reopen it again. The Foreign Secretary made a speech before the Florence speech in which he tried to undermine the Prime Minister’s position going there. When she had made the Florence speech, he wrote an article a few days later—I think that I have this the right way round—putting out a starkly different interpretation of what she had said. This House of Commons has not so far had the opportunity to express an opinion, which is what new clause 54 is about.

Iain Duncan Smith: For the most part, this is a fairly benign new clause, but I am not certain, even from listening to him now, what my right hon. and learned  Friend’s concern is in subsection (2) of his new clause where it refers to subsection (1). It seems he is concerned that somehow there will not be an implementation period. Alternatively, is it just that that implementation period has never been discussed by Parliament? Is there a fear the Government will try to do the dirty on us? I do not understand why he feels he has to have this provision.

Kenneth Clarke: It is an attempt to rule out both. Before anybody starts resorting to talking about drafting points, which is what has happened on every point of principle we have had in the past seven days of debate, they can all be sorted out on Report. If something in the wording of the new clause raises some serious technical difficulty, the Government should table an amendment on Report to sort it out. I am sure that would face no resistance at all.

Paul Farrelly: I have been trawling back through my more recent memory banks. If I am not mistaken, before the Minister was taken to task and dismissed the new clause as a constitutional novelty, which is no argument, he was rather sympathetic to its content, so I was assuming that he might agree with it because it is, after all, in agreement with what the Prime Minister said.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall not go back to waxing too much about the nature of the debates we have been having. We can be clear that it is the fault not of the Ministers but of the brief they have been given to keep things going until the timetable motion comes in, at which point if all is intact, they have made it—that is their job done. Those of us who have been Ministers have probably been in that situation ourselves on various occasions. Just as in the debate about the meaningful vote when the Minister at no stage engaged in the question what sort of meaningful vote the House of Commons should have, on this occasion the Minister has not engaged in any feature of the Florence speech with which he had any reservations. The substance was not challenged by a word that he said, hence my speculating why we might see the extraordinary spectacle of the Government instructing all their Ministers to vote against a prime ministerial declaration of Government policy from which, as far as I can see, the Prime Minister has at no stage personally withdrawn.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: Let me make a little more progress, or I am going to take far too long. I will try to give way later.
So far, in the complete confusion that has surrounded the consequences of the referendum for the past 18 months—I think we all agree that it has been an extraordinary situation since then—the few actual solid advances on policy have been made on only a few occasions. Indeed, the only times that the Prime Minister has set out policy clearly and been able to sign up to it—in the belief and, I think, hope that all her Government might agree to it—were the Lancaster House speech, the Florence speech and last week when she entered into the agreement on the outline of the withdrawal agreement.
I do not want to put the Lancaster House speech into the Bill, because that was the beginning of our problems. I do not know why the Prime Minister went there to   interpret and declare the referendum result as meaning that we were leaving the single market and the customs union and abandoning the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I shall come back to this later, but all our economic problems stem from that. Some people may have argued during the referendum campaign that we should leave the single market and the customs union, but I never met one and I did not read about one in the media. The leading lights of the leavers who were reported in the media—I accept that the national media reporting of the referendum debate was pretty dreadful on both sides, with a very low level of accuracy and content—and particularly the Foreign Secretary emphasised that our trading position would not be changed at all. The Prime Minister changed that in her Lancaster House speech.
The Prime Minister and the Government are free traders. I am a free trader. I keep asserting that we are free traders. The objections to the single market and the customs union that she and the Government give are nothing to do with open trade, which is quite accepted. It is said that we have to leave the single market because it is accompanied by the freedom of movement of workers. Well, as we were running the most generous version of freedom of movement in western Europe before the referendum, if that is the problem—if migration is what we really want to get out of—let us address that and not throw out the baby with the bath water by leaving the single market.
Similarly, I have never heard anybody get up and say what is wrong with the customs union in so far as it is an arrangement that gives a completely open border between ourselves and 27 other countries in Europe. What is wrong with it? Nothing. Apparently, we have to leave the customs union, so that the Secretary of State for International Trade can go away and pursue what I think is this extraordinary vision that we sometimes get given of reaching trade agreements with all these great countries throughout the world that are about to throw open their doors to us without any corresponding obligations on our part, no doubt, to compensate us for the damage that we will do to our trade with Europe. I am afraid that I do not believe that.
I wish to move to my final point, because other people are trying to get in. I have the Florence speech with me. It was a really substantial move forward. Let me just quote the bit on the transition period, which is what I am concentrating on. It says:
“So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.
The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.”
Several times since then, the Prime Minister has been courageous enough to make it clear that it means that, during this transition period, we accept the regulatory harmony we have in the single market, we accept the absence of customs barriers in the customs union and we accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to resolve disputes.
I have never understood what on earth is supposed to be wrong with the European Court of Justice except  that it has the word “European” in its title. A very distinguished British judge is one of the people who is appointed to it. There is no case of any significance that we have ever lost there. The City of London and our financial services industry enjoy a passport for very important trade in the eurozone, particularly all the clearing operations that they have done. We had to go to the European Court of Justice as plaintiffs against the European Central Bank to get that passport. But, no, it is a foreign court, and it will be replaced by an international arbitration agreement of the kind that exists in every other trade agreement in the world. The ECJ is a superior system, but we will not get a trade agreement with any country anywhere of any significance, or with a developed economy, that does not have a mutually binding legal arbitration or jurisdiction of some kind, which resolves disputes under the treaty.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I will conclude if I may. I have already taken longer than I said, so please forgive me.
Let me just touch on this question: how we can get this whole debate into the grown up world and accept the reality that exists in a globalised economy. What do we mean by international trade agreements? What is beneficial to a country such as ours to give us the best base for future prosperity in the modern world? Frankly, at times, some of the debate has taken on an unreal quality.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East, my collaborator in this new clause, because he gave a very carefully researched and very clear description of what actually is involved in trading arrangements. The first simple political point I will make is that, at the moment, we have absolutely unfettered access, by way of regulatory barriers, customs and so on, to the biggest and most open free-trade system in the world. Nowhere else has rivalled it. MERCOSUR failed because it did not have the institutions such as the Court or the Commission; the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—is collapsing; and the Americans have pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Everybody wants these deals, but only 28 European nation states have succeeded in getting such an open one. Of course the hon. Member for Vauxhall and others have argued strongly that we voted to leave that. Anything new that we put in by way of tariff barriers, customs barriers or regulatory barriers is bound to damage our position compared with where we are now. That is why we should minimise all those things as far as we can.
It is no good developing some fantasy that we are going to reach an agreement that puts up new barriers to trade—that we are going to get protectionist towards the rest of Europe, while being ultimate free traders towards the rest of the world—without damaging ourselves. Both sides exaggerate, which is pretty typical of most political arguments that take place in any democracy. Once people start putting mad figures on everything, they can get carried away.
Any new barriers would have a markedly damaging effect on the British economy over any period, making us poorer than we otherwise would be, subject to all the other vagaries that affect economies. There is no getting  away from that. Some argue in favour of that by saying, “Well, we suffer such disadvantages being inside this dreadful European Union. We’ll do so much better when we go outside, free from the trammels that Brussels puts upon us.” I have never discovered these trammels; they are a complete fiction. I will illustrate my point with the example of China.
China is a very important market, which we are all trying to develop. It will become more and more important, but it is a very difficult market. There is a long way to go before anybody gets anything like a proper free trade agreement with China, but we spend a lot of effort trying. We are hopelessly outperformed by the Germans, and the French do better in China than we do. These terrible burdens, imposed by the fact that we come from within the constraints of the European Union, do not seem to be holding the Germans back, and I know no German businessman who wishes to throw them off. It is complete nonsense.
My final point is on our attempts to approach these countries. I have been involved in trade negotiations with quite a lot of them. I led for the Government, in so far as the Government took a part—indeed, we were active enthusiasts—in the EU-US TTIP negotiations. That was during my last post in government. The EU has just got an agreement with Japan, which is amazing. Now, all these EU agreements were urged on by British Governments, particularly British Conservative Governments. We were the leading nation state on economic liberal reform inside the European Union. There was no Government keener on these trade agreements.
Somebody has already touched on the unknown matter of what we are going to do with the 60-something countries—I think that there are 67—with which we currently have EU trade agreements. Are we going to pull out of them all and start again? I hope that we pull out and say, “Can we come back tomorrow and carry on, on the same basis?” Well, that will mean the same relationship between Britain and the EU being maintained; otherwise there will be a difficulty with them all.
Let me come back to the new negotiations, such as with the Americans. We got nowhere with the Americans, even under Obama, so it will be quite hard work to get into America under Trump. But it is not just about the President’s desire to concentrate on American jobs—that means opening up our market, not opening up theirs. To give another example, tariffs do not matter much between many developed countries. Between us and America, they do not matter at all. The tariffs between Europe, Britain and the United States could be abolished tomorrow, and most of the manufacturers affected would not mind. It is regulatory barriers that actually matter, and protectionism in public procurement—but I will leave that to one side.
Regulatory compliance is the very thing that we will be trying to negotiate with the Americans, to open up the financial services market in Wall Street and to open up legal services. It is very difficult, with all the protectionist lobbies in America, to get very far. We will also need common regulations—regulatory compliance—on goods, and we were getting nowhere on that.
The main thing that the Americans want to sell to us is agricultural products. They have a powerful food industry, and they wish to export to us with the considerable competitive power of American industry. But, of course, they cannot comply with our food safety  standards. And what does the Secretary of State for International Trade do, but come back to this country, trying to sell to the British the virtues of American food standards, which we would have to sign up to? He made a passionate defence of chlorinated chicken. He could have raised—this will certainly be raised—hormone-treated beef. The virtues of genetically modified crops will have to be sold to the British consumer.
Now, as it happens, I am in an ambiguous position. I have eaten frequently in America—I am not yet dead—and I do not share what I think are the slightly superstitious prejudices that some people have, but I think a large number of my compatriots do, and it is going to be a hard sell to get them to take these things.
What is more, if we adopt these American food standards, we will break all the European ones. To the Germans and Austrians, it is almost a religion to be against genetically modified crops and hormone-treated beef. We would just lose all that market to take on one of the most efficient and, actually, slightly subsidised agricultural industries in the world, which is looking forward to flooding our market with its products. What are we going to get in return? On my limited experience of going to Washington on such subjects, it is going to take us many years to get very much at all, even if President Trump suddenly becomes a genuine free trader and wishes to show favour to us.
So behind all this—many Members have spoken on this—the harsh reality is that none of us has the first idea how this country is going to maintain its present living standards and employment levels and keep up with modern markets, while pulling out—from behind protectionist barriers—of the biggest single market in the world, which is our most important market. Nobody can answer that point.
At least, while years are taken to resolve these things in negotiations with Europe, we have the Government saying they want a transition period of at least two years. I read out the passage. There is absolutely nothing in new clause 54 that the Prime Minister could not have signed up to in principle when she left the podium in Florence. If the Government are going to end this debate by saying, “Well, that may be Government policy, but we are ordering all Conservative MPs, in the spirit of Christmas, to vote against it,” I will continue to believe that this is one of the biggest shambles I have ever seen in my life, on one of the most important subjects that we have to resolve for the benefit of future generations.

Ian Murray: May I start by paying tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? He is one of the very few voices of sanity on the Government side of the House with regard to Brexit. When the history books are written about this damaging period for the United Kingdom, his name will be right at the top as the person who tried his very hardest to save Britain from doing damage to itself when leaving the European Union. That is what the vast majority of Members on the Opposition side of the House have been trying to achieve with their amendments to the Bill, and certainly with the amendments in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends this evening.
May I also pay tribute to the Clerks of the House, who have marshalled this Bill incredibly well through the last eight days in Committee? The emails that have  come to many of us who submitted amendments have been detailed and helpful, and great tribute goes to the Clerks. They thoroughly deserve their Christmas break, but they should rest assured that we will be back in January to work them just as hard on Report and Third Reading. So merry Christmas and thank you to the staff in the Clerks’ office of this House.
I am slightly confused by the Minister’s approach to new clauses 54 and 13—the two new clauses I would like to concentrate on this evening. That is particularly true of new clause 54, because I thought the whole point of legislation was to put Government policy on the statute book. I thought Government policy would come forward—whether in a manifesto or in a speech, as in the Florence speech—and would then be codified in legislation in order that the Government’s wishes were put into law. That seems to be the process that this Parliament has been going through for several hundred years.
For the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Yes, this is Government policy, but we don’t put it into law” seems to be an excuse not to put it into law. I think we could all draw the same conclusion from that excuse: as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, the Cabinet does not agree on the Florence speech—it is trying to change the dynamics and the content of the Florence speech—and the Prime Minister is desperately trying to hold the extreme right wing of the Conservative party within this process and to manage her party rather than this process. Otherwise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, there was nothing in new clause 54 that the Prime Minister did not say in her Florence speech that should not be codified in the Bill to enable this Parliament and the country to be comfortable that the Florence speech is the direction of the Government.

Stephen Doughty: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence, given the reluctance to put the Florence speech into statute, that the Prime Minister appears today to be rowing back on amendment 7 and that we have heard the Minister do the same from the Dispatch Box?

Ian Murray: Amendment 7 is incredibly important. That is why I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) did not take an intervention during her contribution. What amendment 7 did last week was to show that this Parliament can speak. It gave power to this Parliament to say that we require a piece of legislation to go through the processes in this House to make sure that this Parliament has spoken when we leave the European Union. The Minister, not unsurprisingly, sought to give assurances to many right hon. and hon. Members on amendments that they have tabled that the Government will do the right thing, but refused—absolutely refused—at the Dispatch Box, on three separate occasions, to give a commitment from the Government that they would abide by the will of this House and abide by amendment 7.
In addition to that, this afternoon the Prime Minister was asked on several occasions at the Liaison Committee to abide by amendment 7, and on all those occasions she refused to give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will not row back on amendment 7 on  Report. That is not taking back control. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall should reflect very carefully on the fact that, whether or not one agrees with the principles of amendment 7 or bringing a piece of legislation through this House to implement the deal, this Parliament has spoken and therefore the Government have a legal, moral and democratic responsibility to abide by that decision and do what this Parliament has asked them to do. To do anything other than that would not just be kicking a hornets’ nest—it would be contemptuous to the hon. Members who walked through the Lobby last week to put amendment 7 into the Bill. If the Government do decide to row back on amendment 7 on Report, that will show that their direction on this Bill, and on removing the UK from the European Union, has nothing to do with the future of this country but is to do with the future of their own party.
The reason that amendment 7 is so important is that it allows this Parliament to have a say. The reason this Parliament needs to have a say—this goes to new clause 54 and, indeed, new clause 13—is that we cannot trust a thing that Ministers say. Their statements contradict all the aspirations that they wish to achieve through this process. Indeed, Michel Barnier has said in the past 48 hours that the red lines that the Government have drawn for themselves contradict the objectives that they wish to achieve from this process. That is why we are tabling new clauses like new clause 13.
I represent a constituency where tens of thousands of jobs, and the entire Edinburgh economy, are reliant on financial services. The head negotiator from the European Union said yesterday that the red lines that the Government have drawn for themselves are completely contradictory to their aspiration to keep passporting and a unique deal for financial services. Tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on jobs or secondary jobs in financial services would look at these reports and say, “If the Government do have the aspiration to keep the financial services passporting arrangements and to keep the financial services sector in the UK healthy, then they should put that aspiration into the Bill.” That is what new clause 54 is seeking to do. If the Government do not do that, my constituents could draw the conclusion that the Government may have to throw some sectors under the bus.
I say that because nothing could be as good as the situation that we have at the moment. We have free and unfettered access for goods and services, free and unfettered access to the customs union, and free and unfettered access to the single market. The aspiration of this Government is to ensure that when we come out of this process, we have exactly the same, if not better, terms than we have at the moment. That is completely and utterly impossible, because the European Union will never agree to the same benefits of the customs union and the single market if we are dealing with it on a separately negotiated basis. That means—this goes to the arguments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—that when doing individual bilateral trade deals with the US, Australia, India or wherever else, the Government will have to throw some sectors under the bus. Michel Barnier has said in the past 48 hours that the red lines that the Government have drawn and the aspirations they wish to achieve for the financial services sector are contradictory and therefore  cannot happen. If the Government refuse to accept any of the amendments, do we draw the conclusion that financial services is a sector that they are willing to throw under the bus?

Robin Walker: indicated dissent.

Ian Murray: If that is not the case for financial services—I can see the Minister shaking his head to indicate that it might not be—perhaps I can turn the Minister’s attention to the Scotch whisky industry. Is that a sector that the Government are determined to throw under the bus? What about our wonderful Aberdeen Angus beef sector? Will the country be flooded with antibiotic beef to allow us to get a deal with the US, which may be contradictory to our deal with the EU? If the Minister is saying no to all those sectors, which sectors will he throw under the bus? The Government and the Department have drawn red lines that the chief negotiator for the European Union has described as contradictory to the aspiration of keeping financial services in the passporting arrangements with the European Union.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The only red lines from the Labour party that I have read about recently are these. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said that we must leave the single market to respect the referendum result. The shadow spokesman on Brexit, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has said that we must leave the customs union because it would be “a disaster” to stay in it. That is the only controversy I can see here.

Ian Murray: Nobody voted to leave the single market and customs union. As the Chancellor has said, nobody voted in the European Union referendum to make themselves poorer. If the shadow Chancellor wants to walk through the Lobby with the Conservatives to take us out of the customs union and the single market, I certainly do not agree with him on that. I have been elected to represent a constituency that voted 78% remain and that is dependent on financial services, small businesses and the very healthy Scotch whisky industry. It is incumbent on me to defend my constituents’ interests from a Government who would be quite happy to throw sectors under the bus to get a trade deal from any country anywhere in the world, even though we already have 57 free trade deals that benefit all the sectors that I represent.

Kerry McCarthy: I do not know whether my hon. Friend meant to say that his constituents are dependent on Scotch whisky, but I take his point. At the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee this morning, I asked the Environment Secretary about the Canada-plus-plus-plus model. He said that he wanted agri-food to be part of the plus deal, and he referred to the trade agreement with Japan as something that covered agri-food. Is it not the case that, as Michel Barnier says, we will simply not be allowed to cherry-pick and insist on having a Canada-style deal that includes agri-food?

Ian Murray: That is exactly what Michel Barnier said. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union wants a Canada-plus-plus-plus deal with a special arrangement for banks, and the chief negotiator has said that that is impossible for two reasons. It is against  the red lines that the Government have already drawn for themselves, so they are arguing against their own policy. Indeed, we already have special arrangements in place for free and unfettered access for all our sectors; they are called the single market and the customs union. When we have debated the matter in this Chamber on other days, I have made the point that the question of whether or not we agree with the single market and customs union is essentially irrelevant to the Bill. The Government’s negotiating position should, at the very least, keep those options on the table so that the Government can look at them and ask whether they are the way forward.
Why might we remain members of the customs union and the single market for the transition period? We would do that to allow businesses the certainty, security and stability that they require to make the changes that they need to make. When we come out of that transition period—it will not be in two years, according to Michel Barnier; it may be much sooner—we will have to have a system that is, no doubt, worse than that which we had during the transition period.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for raising Canada-plus-plus-plus, because that is impossible to achieve with the red lines that have been drawn. Perhaps the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box—he can intervene on me, if he likes, or on any other hon. Member—and tell us which red lines the Government are willing to drop to achieve the Government’s aspiration of Canada-plus-plus-plus with a special deal for financial services.

Ben Bradshaw: Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) took evidence this morning from the Environment Secretary, the Health Committee took evidence yesterday from representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. They were completely realistic about the fact that the Government are not going to get any special sectoral deals, and that there will not be any cherry-picking. They unanimously made it clear to us that the only solution for us is to stay in the customs union and the single market, certainly for the transition and possibly—hopefully—beyond that.

Ian Murray: That is the key. We will have had 64 hours of debate in this Committee by the time we vote at 10 minutes past nine this evening. If we distil all our debates over those 64 hours, we get to the conclusion that we should stay in the single market and the customs union. I cannot understand why the Government have decided to throw that entire strategy out the window, probably for ideological reasons.

Mike Gapes: Is not the reality that all this talk of Canada or Canada-plus-plus-plus is an illusion, and that it would be far better to go for the far better deal that is Norway-plus? We should actually stay in the single market because that will be best for our economy and for our political influence in Europe.

Ian Murray: This of course brings us to the crux of the Government’s ideology, and no Government Members can ever stand up again and confidently pronounce that the Conservative party is pro-business.
The Government’s strategy and the red lines they have drawn in relation to the Bill are destroying business and are anti-business. Every sector that gives evidence  to the Health Committee, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee or the International Trade Committee—and on and on—tells us that the only way to resolve these problems is by staying in the single market and the customs union. If such sectors—the people who create the jobs, employ the people and create the wealth in this country—are telling us that, we should listen to them, rather than to those on the extreme right wing of the Conservative party. They claim to be free traders, but they want to throw out 57 trade deals for some aspirational trade deals—no one can yet tell us whether anyone is even in the queue or wanting to speak to us about them—which is surely anti-trade and anti-business, and is destroying the fabric of the economy of this country.

Wera Hobhouse: Is there not a deep misunderstanding among those who say they want free trade agreements but to be outside the customs union? Creating a customs border is independent of how much we actually raise tariffs, because there will still be a border and there will still be checks. However freely or not freely we trade, creating a customs border will lead to delays, checks, regulations and so on and so forth. People say that we will have a great free trade deal, but we will still have a border, and that is what will be damaging.

Ian Murray: That intervention—I will finish on this point—gets to the crux of new clause 13, because we will have to have a border.
I will keep making in this House the same argument that the Minister and his colleagues in this House made when they stood on the same platform as me during the Scottish independence referendum. They consistently said that if the UK was split up and Scotland came out of the UK single market, there would have to be a border at Berwick. Why? Because there would be different arrangements for customs, regulatory matters, the free movement of people and goods.
How can Ministers now stand at the Dispatch Box with a straight face and say that none of this now applies either to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or indeed to Gibraltar? There is no answer to that question because, again, the Government’s red lines and their narrative do not fit with where they want to go on the final negotiations. We cannot have frictionless free trade while having differential arrangements on customs or regulatory alignment: it just does not work. If the Minister wants to intervene on me to tell me how it will work, rather than just using narrative and rhetoric—and anybody can understand how it will actually work—I would be happy to agree with him.

Peter Kyle: Is it not interesting that when the public were consulted in a people’s assembly, with a representative sample of leavers and remainers, the conclusion they came to was that they wanted to remain in the single market, but to extend all the freedoms we already have to limit freedom of movement? Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to listen more to the public and involve them more?

Ian Murray: I absolutely agree. The 34 million people who voted in the EU referendum probably voted one way or the other for 34 million different reasons, but it is incumbent on politicians to start taking a lead and to be  brave about making the arguments. We should say to the country, “The EU referendum delivered a result and, yes, we will be leaving the European Union, but let’s just pause, look at the arguments being put to the country and see whether this is what people actually want.”
If we distil down all the arguments about the customs union and the single market, the only solution we can come to that does not damage this country in any way—in relation to jobs, the cost to business, or the future aspirations of students or of our children—is to stay in the best possible platform for free trade and regulatory alignment, which is the single market and the customs union. No one will forgive this Government, or anyone else who argues against that, when the first person leaves a financial services company in my constituency with their P45 in their hand. I will take no pleasure in saying “I told you so,” but the Government can pull back now, can sort out the Bill, can agree to some of these amendments in principle and come back on Report and put on the table, at the very least, a negotiation about keeping the UK in the single market and the customs union. To do anything less, with the red lines that they have drawn and the aspirations that they have, is pulling the wool over the eyes of the public, and they should be brave enough to admit it.

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall be brief because I support amendments 381 and 400, advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). I congratulate them on arriving at quite sensible arrangements. I know others want to speak, so I will not be drawn into the wider debate that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) initiated with his new clause, and took some pleasure in pursuing—as others have done, too. A lot of today’s debate has been about rerunning the arguments around the referendum and coming to a different conclusion. People are welcome to do that as much as they like, but when they say that the British people have not been consulted, I think they were consulted, and they voted and that vote was binding, and we are now getting on with it.
I congratulate Ministers on their persistence on the Front Bench over the past eight days of debate on the Bill. I believe that they listened carefully to those with different opinions and made many, many changes. I say to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have disagreed with the Government over this issue on a number of occasions—and even voted against them, where necessary, as I have done in the past—that I am just a touch jealous of them. When I voted against the Government on Maastricht, I knew I did not have a hope in hell of getting anything changed. I was always told, “You can’t change any of this because we have just signed an agreement.” I am jealous because they have actually managed to get some change, so I congratulate them on achieving something that I was never able to achieve 25 years ago. None the less, I hope that tonight they do not necessarily choose to pursue that course of action with the amendments before us.
I say so because I think, in congratulating Ministers and others on signing up to the amendments, they do tidy up something that has been a concern—not just a concern felt by right hon. and hon. Friends who were in  a strongly opposed position, but many others. I feel it is right to put the date of our departure in the Bill. I think it is quite right because it makes a statement of reality, which is that we are bound under article 50. The Bill, which is a process, should have the same provision in it. But we have to retain some flexibility within that. Following clause 1, which essentially says that we are repealing the European Communities Act 1972, we do not want to get into a mess where we end up having one set of dates for the repeal of that Act and another set of dates for a final conclusion of any arrangements we make with the European Union.
That conflict of law would have created a bigger problem, and I am sure we would have had to return to the matter on Third Reading, or even after the Bill came back from the other place. I therefore think that this way of doing things is neater and more flexible than the alternative, which would have been to pass a set of primary legislation to modify this Bill, as and when we reach agreements. I think that would have been a bit of a nightmare for my right hon. and hon. Friends. To that extent, I believe that this is a better way to do things.
The words in article 50 are pretty clear. I have read them on a number of occasions—I do read other things as well. Article 50 states quite clearly—it has always been clear—that the treaties shall cease to apply
“from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification…unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
Article 50 has always been clear that, should there be a requirement for an extension for practical reasons or whatever, it is up to the 28 countries to agree unanimously. To that extent, the amendment achieves that rather succinctly, but I stand by the fact that it was right for the Government to have been firm in wanting to put the date in the Bill. It would have been an anomaly not to have a date in the Bill and they would have had to come back at some stage to put it in. To provide that flexibility now makes it worthwhile.
I have heard that some colleagues do not like the amendment, because they cannot trust the Government to stick to it and to make only marginal changes. The problem for those of us who have supported the Government is that we have had to bite the bullet a lot and give them a great deal of trust. For over 44 years, I have watched successive Governments—I have been a part of some of them, happily, up to a certain point—implement, through section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 and the use of statutory instruments, vast changes to the way we regulate and legislate here in the United Kingdom. The Government’s original position when this was first debated was that they did not think it would lead to many changes being brought in by statutory instrument. I wonder if those who pushed the Bill through, on revisiting the scale of the changes brought in by statutory instruments over 40 years, would think that they had misread what they were actually giving Governments the power to do.
I have a lot of sympathy for those who do not want to be left in the position of trusting the Government—none of us do. One reason why I felt all along that I was prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt is simply because the process has a conclusion  beyond which they will not be able to proceed. The process of leaving the European Union will ultimately bring back—this is one of the reasons I am very keen on it—an enhancement of Parliament’s role to a far greater degree than it has been over the years. I have on many occasions watched pointless debates in the House knowing full well there was absolutely nothing we could change—not just Maastricht, but all the other treaty changes and so on—as we in Parliament had no power whatever to call the Government to account on any of these issues. The reality was that they were already bound by a process in another place.
The argument that the use of statutory instruments to push European regulations through the House was legitimate because Government Ministers entertained a debate among Government Ministers within the European Union does not make any sense to me. Those who advance that argument then say they want Parliament to have all the say and that they do not trust the Government on statutory instruments. They seem to be colliding in their own argument from two different directions.
I fully accept that we want to ensure that the Government are not just working on the basis of trust. To that extent, I recognise and accept that the changes will help to ensure that they do not. However, I would say that we cannot just sweep away the past 40 years on the basis that this was somehow okay because Government officials and Ministers discussed these things. Parliament had no say whatever for 40 years. It could not change anything. As I said when I talked about Maastricht, we could not change anything. I knew it was pretty pointless, but I none the less opposed various elements and voted accordingly. I knew there was not a chance of us changing anything because Parliament had no power. Parliament will now again have power over a Government. I think that some of the very poor behaviour of Governments of both parties over the years in being able to ignore Parliament will start to fall away. I hope and believe that Parliament will again reassert itself.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned about this, the idea—

Edward Leigh: We have no concerns at all here.

Iain Duncan Smith: Is my hon. Friend asking me to give way?

Edward Leigh: No, no.

Iain Duncan Smith: Excellent. It is always good to take a sedentary intervention from my hon. Friend.
I said I would be brief, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I support the amendments and I congratulate those who drafted them. I want the Government to get through this as best they can. They should listen carefully where there are changes to be made but, if we have to return to this matter on Report, they will certainly have my support in making whatever changes are necessary to accommodate concerns so that we get a Bill that is reasonable, feasible and puts the power back into the House.
I would make one small point, however, to those who opened up this massive debate about what happened during the referendum and the idea that we can guess  what was in people’s minds. It was said again and again, as I recall, by the then Prime Minister, by the then Chancellor, by Lord Mandelson and also by many in the vote leave campaign, that voting to leave meant leaving the customs union and the single market. Now, I understand and accept that people might not want to do that—they advance all sorts of reasons for not doing it—but it was said again and again. On the idea that the British people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for, I say that they were right in their decision and made a decision that was a lot more intelligent than people give them credit for.

Kenneth Clarke: When that was said—it probably was said by one or two campaigners on the remain side during the referendum campaign—it was used as an argument against voting to leave. The reaction of leave campaigners was to dismiss it, saying it was the politics of fear, that people were being alarmist in talking about leaving the single market and that in fact our trading arrangements would remain absolutely unchanged, because the Germans had to sell us their Mercedes. That was the role it played in the referendum campaign.

Iain Duncan Smith: I always like to take an intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend. We agree on many things, but not on this, it has to be said. He will remember that, when he was Lord Chancellor, I supported him in getting through his very good and far-reaching reforms—I wish they had all been put through, but they were not, as he knows. To that extent, I have long supported him, but on this I do not fully agree with him. I think it was clear. It is no good saying that “some” people on the remain side said it. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor were the leaders of the remain campaign, certainly on the Government Benches, but also from the stand point of the country, and they were very clear on this. I do not recall anyone—I certainly did not—saying, “No, no, we’ll stay in the single market and customs union.” I have always made the point that leaving means leaving the Court of Justice, the customs union and the single market. Voters were, I believe, clear about that, but we can all debate and rerun the arguments.

Anna Soubry: I will undertake to send to my right hon. Friend a list of the various quotes from leading members of the leave campaign who told the British people, “There will be no change in our trading arrangements”, “We’ll do deals in a day and a half”, “We can be like Norway”, “We might want to be like Switzerland”, and so on and so forth. It was made very clear to the British people that the trading arrangements and economic benefits of the EU would remain the same. Does he honestly think that in his constituency of an evening in the Dog and Duck people sat there and said, “I tell you what, you know this single market, well I’m all for out of that”? Does he honestly think they really understood the issue, when there are obviously right hon. and hon. Members in this House who still do not understand what the single market and the customs union are?

Iain Duncan Smith: That may be. I do not know of the Dog and Duck, unless they have moved a new building into my constituency, but I say to my right hon. Friend  that people made a decision to leave, and that argument was debated extensively: it was on television, the Prime Minister was questioned endlessly and others such as Lord Mandelson said categorically that if people voted to leave, we would be leaving these institutions.

Peter Kyle: We are debating what was said to the electorate during that period, but none of us are talking about what the electorate are thinking now. That is the most important thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as we enter the most crucial part of this stage of the negotiations, the Government should put far more energy into understanding what the public actually think and aspire to for our future relationship with the single market, the customs union and the EU in general and take that into account?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am all for consulting the British people. That is what we are here for as MPs, right? It is what we do when we go back to our constituencies and talk to people. The honest truth, however, is that we can consult them as much as we like, and we will get different opinions all the time, depending on the question. The biggest consultation I have ever seen took place in 2016: it was called a referendum. The difference between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the rest of the House is that he has been opposed to referendums throughout his political life and has never voted for them, whereas most other Members did vote for a referendum. When Members vote for a referendum, they are bound by the decisions that the British people make, and in this instance the British people asked us to leave the European Union.
Much of the debate has been about rerunning the referendum. I fully understand that some people will never be reconciled to the idea of departure or of leaving the customs union and the single market, but what we are talking about today is getting out of the European Union. It is not a question of the date, but a question of the process. We are leaving anyway. I support the Government because I believe that leaving the customs union and the single market and taking back control of our laws is exactly the right thing to do, and I do not think they should listen to the siren voices that tell them otherwise.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Amess: Order. The debate will finish at 9.10 pm, and there are still 17 Members wishing to speak. Interventions will shorten the time even further. I very much want to call everyone. I have no powers in this regard, but I appeal to colleagues to try to limit their speeches to five minutes so that everyone can be called. I hope we shall see a good example of that now from Mr Tom Brake.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Sir David. Your timing is perfect.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It enables me to remind him of the promises that were made during the referendum about the £350 million a week that would be available to the NHS post-Brexit. I am as imbued with the good spirit of Christmas as others, Sir David, and I will therefore seek to limit my comments to the five minutes that you have specified.
A number of Members referred to what the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee in connection with amendment 7. I understand that she was asked no fewer than five times to confirm that she would provide a meaningful vote, by which I mean a vote that would take place on a Bill that will be amendable and would allow the debate to take place at a time when the Government could be instructed to go back and negotiate some more.
Let me briefly comment on new clauses 13 and 54. New clause 13 would ensure that we stayed in the customs union. That, I think, remains the only solution to the Ireland-Northern Ireland border issue apart from a border in the Irish Sea, which I do not think the Democratic Unionist party would support.

Jim Shannon: Never.

Tom Brake: As for new clause 54, it would be strange if Ministers did not want to support the Prime Minister’s words. I suspect that, if they did not support them in tonight’s vote, that would amount to a rebellion. We know that had the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs been here, they might have led such a rebellion, but I doubt whether junior Ministers would want to be responsible for a rebellion that would set aside what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech.
My main purpose is to refer to amendment 120, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which amounts to a request for a vote on the deal. I am sure that, if there were time, I would give way to a great many interventions about the will of the people, but the will of the people as expressed on 23 June last year is not necessarily the will of the people as expressed today. It is because I respect the will of the people that I believe that the people should be given the chance to vote on the final deal that the Prime Minister secures. There is absolutely no doubt that the final deal will look very different from the deal that they were offered on 23 June last year.
I promise not to refer too often to the £350 million that was offered on the side of the bus, but people will remember that pledge, and it is not going to be honoured. They will also remember a pledge about a significant cut in immigration. There has, in fact, been a drop in immigration, but I think that it has happened because the UK economy has shrunk rather than for any other reason. It has certainly not happened in respect of non-EU citizens coming to the United Kingdom, because over many years the level of non-EU immigration has remained consistently high—and, of course, every Member will know that that is something of which our Government are in complete control.
Finally, there were the threats made about the 5 million people who were supposedly going to arrive in the UK as a result of our membership of the EU, and our Foreign Secretary who talked about opening the borders to Turkey and the claim that there would be marauding gangs of armed criminals out and about threatening people in our towns and villages.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) used conciliatory language in describing his position on the idea of having a vote on the deal, but I recommend to him, and perhaps others, that the Liberal Democrats are first adopters of this policy, with the Green party, and I hope he will  develop an appetite for it—and, indeed, that some Labour Members might as well. It would require legislation, followed by a three-month election campaign, and then a vote that would have to take place before we finally leave the EU, but that is perfectly possible.
I conclude by saying that that would enable the UK population to have a vote on the deal; they would be able to express their views on whether they still want to accept now what they were offered on 23 June last year.

Anna Soubry: I rise to support new clauses 54 and 13, both of which, if put to the vote, I shall vote for.
I made it clear to the people of Broxtowe when I stood back in June that I would continue to make the case and vote for the single market, the customs union and, indeed, the positive benefits of immigration. We are on day eight of our Committee proceedings, and, goodness me, if only we had had all this quality debate—this exposition of all the arguments—before the referendum, we perhaps would have had a different result.
My constituents might not have changed their minds, but they overwhelmingly say to me now, “I didn’t know it was going to be so complicated; I didn’t know what it would be like.” I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that customers in the Nelson and Railway pub in Kimberley— a fine pub, and I will take him there one day—did not sit there talking about the customs union.

Iain Duncan Smith: Of course they didn’t.

Anna Soubry: Exactly, of course they didn’t. They did not talk about the single market. They did talk about immigration, however, and they thought they pretty much did not like it, even though in Kimberley there have probably been about four immigrants over the course of about 200 years.
We have had that part of the debate, but there is a grave danger in looking at the result of the referendum and saying, “The British people have definitely said they don’t want the single market and the customs union and all the rest of it”. We are leaving the EU, so I have voted to trigger article 50—I have taken that big step against everything I have ever believed in, and I accept we are leaving the EU—but I am not going to stay silent, and I am not going to stop making the case for us to do the right thing as we leave. I gently say to those who stand up and bang on about the devilment of the single market and the customs union that that is gravely insulting to British business.
What have we seen in this peculiar debate? It has been peculiar. I endorse everything my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) have said; it must be a Nottingham thing that there is this agreement between the three of us about the merits of the customs union and the arguments made about the Florence speech and why it should be on the face of the Bill.
I also observe that the Government have not really conceded very much at all. They have accepted that there was a real problem with the Henry VIII powers and they have accepted amendments that they pretty much drafted themselves, and they now accept the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for  West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but we must be honest about that: it was an amendment rightly put forward by him, but to solve a problem of the Government’s creation, because they lost the vote on amendment 7. It might be a very good fudge, but we must not make any mistake about it: if it had not come as an idea from the Government, it would not be before us as an amendment—I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend.
The Government have not actually conceded anything at all. They have gone away and said some warm words, but I am now worried and concerned. Last week, 11 very honourable and brave people on this side of the House had to face what some of my colleagues think is just a bit of intimidation. We have seen national newspapers hurling abuse, and putting up photographs almost like “Wanted” posters. In the face of all that and of a lot of strong-arm tactics—I will not go into that here, but those responsible for them know exactly what was going on behind the scenes; let us not pretend otherwise—they voted, in some cases for the first time ever, and in others for the first time in more than 20 years of honourable and loyal service to their party, in accordance with their conscience when they voted for amendment 7.
Today, however, our Prime Minister appears to be rowing back on that, and the Minister is unable to give us an unequivocal statement at the Dispatch Box that the Government will honour amendment 7. Let me make it very clear that if there is any attempt by the Government to go back on amendment 7, the rebellion will be even greater and have even bigger consequences.

Steven Baker: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an early Christmas present. I can give her the following assurance on behalf of the Government. The Government have accepted amendment 7. Our written ministerial statement on procedures for the approval and implementation of the EU exit agreement stands. There will be the following meaningful votes in accordance with that statement: on the withdrawal treaty, and on the terms of the future agreement. There will also be a withdrawal and implementation Bill, which the House will consider in detail, and of course all legislation is amendable.

Anna Soubry: I think that that is the unequivocal statement I am looking for. If it is, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clearing that up. It is indeed a great Christmas present.
It is obvious that the two main parties in this place remain deeply divided, just as the country does. The irony of the situation will not be lost on future generations as they read Hansard. We have a considerable number of hon. and right hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches who completely agree with a considerable number of hon. and right hon. Members sitting on these Benches, yet we are prevented from building consensus and finding agreement because of the divisions within the two parties and, it has to be said, some intransigence on our two Front Benches. It is not for me to comment on the state of the Labour party, however; I will leave others to do that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has already identified the fact that, 18 months on, we still do not know what the Government see as their endgame. Our own Cabinet remains totally divided  on this great issue—the greatest issue that we have had to wrestle with for decades. I say to my honourable and dear colleagues that there are some on these Benches who are entrenched in their ideological view about the European Union and will not move from it. They are a small group—they are the minority—but I feel as though they are running our country, and that cannot be right. Then there is another group, a big wide group of Conservative colleagues. Some of them are reluctant remainers, some are leavers-lite, and as they hear our debates and listen to the businesses that come to speak to them in their constituency offices, they are feeling uneasy and queasy. I do not say that they have to agree with me—of course they do not—but I asked them to listen to the arguments that are being advanced by those of us who speak on behalf of our constituents, notably businesses, about a deal.
We are not going to get a bespoke deal from the European Union—well, not unless we pay shed loads of money for access to this or that market—but there is something available to us. It is EFTA. It is the customs union. It is sitting there as a package. We can take it and seize it, and British business would be delighted if we did so. And then it would be done. The British people would say, “Thank God! They’ve got on and delivered Brexit”, and all would be well. We need to get on with it, so that we can then address the great domestic issues. I beg my hon. Friends to google EFTA and the customs union over the Christmas period. I urge them to understand them and to look at what Norway gets. Norway is able to determine its own agricultural and fisheries policies, for example. My hon. Friends need to know and understand these things. Then we need to come back in the new year and make a fresh start on forming that consensus that our constituents are dying to hear about, because they are fed up to the back teeth with what is going on.

Stephen Kinnock: It is important to note the difference between EFTA and the customs union, which is mainly that EFTA countries are able to strike trade deals with third countries. For example, Iceland has a bilateral trade deal with China.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is the sort of detail we need. We have to understand all the different arrangements that are there that will work and suit our country, and I beg right hon. and hon. Members to look at them. The solutions are there. We are not going to get a bespoke deal, but arrangements are there on the shelf. We can grasp them, sort out Brexit, move on and do the right thing by our country and our constituents.

Mary Creagh: I begin by expressing my condolences and those of all Members to our friend and colleague Mr Deputy Speaker. He has suffered such a grievous loss, and we hold him in our hearts and prayers this Christmas season.
It is a pleasure to follow such interesting, well-informed speeches. I will discuss new clause 61 and amendment 291, which are in my name. We have heard much from the Minister today and from the Prime Minister, but my concern is that the blandishments and reassurances that we have been given actually contain more fudge than I hope to find in my Christmas stocking on Monday. As we look forward to the phase 2 negotiations, I am clear  about one thing: there is no free trade agreement that we can negotiate that will be as comprehensive as the one we have with the EU now. New clause 61 recognises both that and the importance of the UK chemicals industry.
The Bill attempts to cut and paste EU law into UK law, but it cannot do that for the chemicals industry, which is vital to this country. We export almost £15 billion-worth of chemicals to the EU each year. Some 60% of all our chemicals go to the EU, and 75% of all our chemical imports come from the EU. We no longer make some basic chemicals due to that close relationship, which is really important for the pharmaceutical industry. Chemicals are our second largest export to the EU after cars, and the industry provides half a million jobs, both directly and indirectly. However, the regulatory uncertainties around Brexit—this hokey-cokey on whether we are going to be the single market or the customs union or have a free trade deal—are sending shockwaves through the chemicals industry.
The industry is concerned that the UK will no longer participate in the EU’s regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals or REACH, and new clause 61 would require us to remain in that arrangement. REACH covers over 30,000 substances and pharmaceuticals that are bought and sold in the single market. It also covers products—everything from the coating on a non-stick frying pan to flame retardants in sofas, carpets and curtains, to gases, fertilisers, plastics, speciality adhesives, rubbers, paints and dyes—and hazardous substances. It seeks to protect human health and the environment, particularly following the disastrous chemical leak in the Italian town of Seveso.
If a UK business wants to sell a chemical product into the EU or to Switzerland, South Korea or Norway, it must be registered with and authorised by the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. Membership of REACH is essentially a passport to the global chemicals marketplace. The Environmental Audit Committee has conducted all sorts of inquiries into the arrangement, but it cannot simply be transposed into UK law because it involves data sharing and co-operation. We do not have a domestic UK agency to carry out the same function, so the Bill will put our trade in chemicals at risk. Without an agreement to the contrary, the European Chemicals Agency has said that all UK companies’ registrations will be non-existent after exit day, which I cannot stress strongly enough. That would mean no access to the database and no legal obligation in this country to have a national helpdesk to give advice to companies. The arbitrary red lines on membership of the single market and customs union are the source of those risks, and the situation could be disastrous. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tweeted about maximum divergence from the EU, but he is effectively putting a stake through the heart of the UK chemicals industry.
The Chemical Business Association told my Committee that 20% of its members are investigating moves out of the UK as a result of Brexit uncertainties. The Chemical Industries Association wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this month, urging the Government
“to do all it can to remain within or as close as possible”
to the EU’s rules. Its chief executive, Steve Elliott, said in his letter that leaving REACH
“would seriously bring into question 10 years of investment, as registrations and authorisations that permit access to the EU single market would suddenly become non-existent on exit day”.
That could have upstream effects on dialysis machines and solar panels, and all sorts of other industries would be affected.
The Chemical Business Association explained to my Committee that
“Compliance with chemicals regulation represents the key to market access…Compliance is non-negotiable. Failure to comply is a barrier to market access. Without market access there is no trade.”
People in the industry have told me privately that this is a business-killing issue, as is tariffs.
EU tariffs on general chemicals are 4.5%; on paints and dyes, they are 6.5%. It is estimated that that would cost the UK chemicals industry £600 million a year. That is before we get to the non-tariff barriers that I have just discussed. By March 2019 when we leave, UK companies will have spent £250 million registering their chemicals—6,000 of them—with the European Chemicals Agency. They have a deadline to meet of next May. Why should they pay money in May 2018 to get chemicals authorised that they will not be able to sell in May 2019? They are concerned about the risk of market freeze as well.
Of those 6,000 substances, 5,400 have animal study data associated with them. If we leave, we may end up needing to test more products on more animals, which I am sure nobody in this House wants. We will be duplicating EU legislation on this. That has an effect on jobs. The Prime Minister’s constituency of Maidenhead has over 400 workers in the chemicals industry. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has 900 jobs in his constituency that are dependent on the industry. In South West Wiltshire and South Thanet, more than 15% of employment depends on the chemicals industry.
When I first asked the Environment Secretary about this issue, he said that when we leave, the area will be regulated better. He told the Committee in November that he is
“looking at how we can use the European Chemicals Agency and the REACH Directive in order to ensure we can trade freely”.
I am telling him now: he simply cannot. Leaving now and diverging will harm jobs, growth, manufacturing and investment in this country.
In view of the time, I will not share my comments on amendment 291. Suffice it to say that the powers in the Bill for tertiary legislation should be curtailed and contained, and we should time-limit new public bodies’ powers to legislate for parts of the economy.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I start by associating myself with the condolences of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and his family. He is greatly regarded by every one of us across the Chamber, I am sure.
I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I listened to his speech, as I did to pretty much all of today’s speeches, and invariably I found myself agreeing  with pretty much every word he said. He has been an absolute stalwart in working to improve the Bill. As others have said, our purpose, through our amendments, has been to improve, not to obstruct. We do not want to obstruct the outcome of the referendum, but we want to ensure that the legislation does the best possible job of the important task that it must do. I hope that the Government have come to recognise that, and that we can continue forward in that spirit.
In a similar vein, it is worth endorsing the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). She is right: most people were not consumed by the minutiae of our arrangements. A fairly broadbrush debate, which was often pretty unsatisfactory and low grade, infected both sides from time to time. Frankly, the topic in hand was not done the justice it should have been done. We must now deliver on the decision, but it is pretty rich when some media commentators seem to regard the efforts of hon. Members to do their job as parliamentarians as some kind of betrayal, which is of course nonsense.
One is reminded more and more of the continuing relevance of those words of Stanley Baldwin when he got his cousin, Rudyard Kipling, to supply some lines about power without responsibility being, if I might paraphrase, the prerogative of the journalistic harlot throughout the ages. Those words are as applicable now as they were in the 1930s.
My three amendments relate to financial matters and matters linked to the City of London Corporation. I am grateful to the Minister and to the Solicitor General for their constructive approach.
Obviously I will not seek to press new clause 71 to a Division. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the centrality of the financial services sector to our economy, which is the point I want to stress. The deal we reach has to look after the interests of this jewel in the crown of the British economy. I am sure that that is the intention, but it is critical that we achieve it. To walk away without a deal would, of course, be of no value at all to the financial services sector, because WTO rules do not apply to it—it is not tariffs but regulatory burdens that would be the obstacle to our successful financial services sector.
As my constituency is that with the 16th highest number of financial and professional services workers in the country, it is my absolute duty to make sure that I am able to have a meaningful say on a deal that will affect their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their neighbours, friends and families. Thanks to the good work of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others, I hope we are now in a position for me to have that say on their behalf. It is important we retain that say.
I was grateful for the Minister’s intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. The truth is that the more a person kicks a hornets’ nest, the angrier they get. I take the Minister’s comments in the spirit in whey they were made, and I hope we can move forward constructively.
New clause 72 addresses another aspect of the City’s work: the question of port charges and port authorities. Again, I welcome the helpful clarification of the  Government’s stance. The port of London, of course, is one of the country’s largest ports, and the City of London is the port health authority. Estimates by port health authorities indicate that there could be a minimum increase in their work load of 25%. The facilities needed to carry out checks will involve a cost not just in revenue terms but in capital terms. If we are able to secure a continuing alignment on standards—I am grateful to the Minister for quoting a number of the regulations—it would obviate those difficulties, which is in the interest of the agricultural sector both here and in the EU, and in the interest of the food retail sector because of the last-minute delivery systems that now play a full part in its way of working.
Amendment 362 addresses the interpretation of contracts, and I am grateful that the Government have said we can continue working on that. Contractual certainty is critical, because many international legal contracts are written using English law because of the high regard in which it is held. That makes our legal services sector a considerable national asset. Maintaining certainty for the sector is important to all the business that comes into the UK, and it underpins the rest of the financial sector, too. I am grateful for the Government’s recognition of that important point.
Finally, I come to new clause 56, on Gibraltar, which I signed, but which stands in the names of SNP Members and others across the House. It has had cross-party support, for which I am grateful. I declare my interest as the chair of the all-party group on Gibraltar. I welcome the Government’s statement, both from Ministers today and from the Prime Minister earlier, of their full commitment to Gibraltar. What is important for Gibraltar—the new clause was designed to probe this—is not just the issue of the predatory approach that Spain takes to Gibraltar and the border. Although that is one issue on which we must fight on Gibraltar’s behalf, we must also address its people’s real desire—this is an absolute necessity for their wellbeing—to maintain access into UK markets and, in particular, to preserve the rights that we and they currently have as common members of the EU. I welcome the fact that the Government will try to find a constructive way of taking that forward. Gibraltar has a thriving financial services sector. It has transformed its economy from a dockyard and garrison economy to one with a significant financial services base. That economy complements the City of London in a number of key sectors, including insurance. Maintaining access is crucial and to the advantage of both the UK and the Gibraltarians. I am, again, grateful to Ministers on that.
I end on this note: the vote was about leaving, not the form of the new relationship. We are talking today about the process. In terms of where we end up, the one thing that has been made clear to me by the many constituents I speak to, particularly those in financial services, manufacturing and many other areas of business, is the absolute criticality of having a proper transitional period. That is vital for the financial services in particular, but also for many other areas. A constituent of mine has a manufacturing business that feeds into a complicated supply chain across EU boundaries. He wants to have certainty about the availability of the supply chain to make his products, and it is critical that there is certainty about the City’s ability to adapt. The City does adapt, and financial services can and will adapt, but they need time to do so, given the varied and complex nature of regulations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe hit on a fair point when she said, “Perhaps don’t start ruling out things that you don’t need to have to rule out.” Some people on the other side of the argument from me never ruled out either the customs union or the single market during the referendum campaign, but it seems that many of them seek to do so now. I would have thought that we ought to be keeping as many options open as possible, and the European Free Trade Association is one such option. I speak as a lawyer and someone who is concerned that we should have a proper dispute resolution mechanism. EFTA does have a court, which, although its jurisprudence historically tends to follow that of the ECJ, is institutionally independent. That is perhaps important for those who regard the move away from a direct jurisdiction as one of the important issues for the negotiations. EFTA is capable of ticking that box, so I simply say that we should not rule it out from the mix of the things we should look at.
In that—I hope—constructive spirit, may I wish you, Mrs Laing, and all hon. Members a happy Christmas? I might exclude from that the gentleman who sent me a card that said on the outside, “The peace and joy of God be upon you”, but said inside, after I opened it, “Judas, leave the country at once and never come back.” [Laughter.] Given that that probably is the least thing that has been said to some people, it is one thing we can laugh about. I say merry Christmas sincerely to all hon. Members. I hope that everybody has a good Christmas and that we can have a constructive new year as we take forward a great issue, on any view of the debate, for this country.

Kate Green: It is a great pleasure to follow my good friend the Chair of the Justice Committee. I had the honour of serving on that Committee when we prepared our report on Brexit’s impact on the justice system, to which the Government provided their response earlier this week. May I say to Ministers that new clause 31, which is about the best interests of children and safeguarding those interests, has a particular relevance to some of the issues that the Committee uncovered? Those relate to family law, which has not been the subject of much debate in Committee but is, none the less, an extremely complicated and important issue for the wellbeing of children. Our EU membership gives us access to institutions that protect and safeguard children as potential victims of crime.
I am particularly pleased to have tabled new clause 31, which would support the Government in their intention of maintaining continuing close co-operation with the EU on policing and criminal justice, and putting in place new arrangements across a wide range of structures to ensure the protections for children provided by our engagement in those criminal justice mechanisms. It is uncertain what that future relationship will look like, and there has been little clarification of how we will replace or adapt to mechanisms such as Europol, Eurojust and the European arrest warrant, but they are important in a context in which children are increasingly the victims of complex cross-border crime, including child sex abuse, online abuse, abduction and trafficking. Those crimes are committed across EU borders. It is extremely important that we have mechanisms both to protect children and to hunt down the perpetrators of such  crimes. We must also be able to foster, on a pan-European basis, crucial educational and support mechanisms and measures that help to build children’s resilience in the face of such terrible crimes.
New clause 31 is particularly important in relation to fostering and adoption processes. Potential carers may be non-UK EU nationals. Rightly, they have to undergo rigorous criminal, medical and social services background checks in the UK, and that information has to come from another country if they have lived abroad. It is extremely important that we can make such checks on EU nationals working in our education, healthcare or care systems, and we must ensure that we can carry them out expeditiously and effectively. We must have the same kind of access as at present to full information about individuals who may be working with our children.
The European arrest warrant has been extremely important for the protection of children. Its use resulted in 110 arrests for child sexual offences in the UK between 2010 and 2016. In return, EU countries made 831 requests to the UK in relation to child sexual offences. Of those cases, 108 arrests were made in the UK. In 2016, the EU made 33 requests to the UK in relation to cases involving child sexual exploitation. Such cases are really important, so we need to ensure that the mechanisms that we put in place if we exit the EU are at least as strong and resilient as those we have now.
In 2015-16, some 60,000 children were reported missing in the UK. Last night, we had an important debate in the Chamber on the Schengen information system and SIS II, which is about to be enhanced under a proposed regulation that will ensure that there is a more proactive system of alerts if a child might be vulnerable to abduction or going missing. It would be extremely regrettable if we were not able to take advantage of the continuing development of legislation and practice on the protection of children who might be at risk of going missing or of abduction, including parental abduction. In that regard, I underline how important it is that we have really good reciprocal family law arrangements so that it is clear that parents must abide by their responsibilities to their children. Wherever the responsibilities are determined and wherever the parent lives, we must know that those responsibilities and obligations can be enforced.
I am concerned that at the point of exit we may lose much of the existing advantage of having a seamless system of information sharing and enforcement that can bring back perpetrators to face justice. I know that Ministers do not want that to be the outcome of our departure from the EU, but unless children are put absolutely front and centre in the negotiations, there is a real risk that children will be harmed. Nobody in the House would want that.
New clauses 32 and 33 are about the socioeconomic wellbeing of children in this country who currently benefit, for example, from European structural and investment funds. We can already see the damaging effect that Brexit is having on family incomes and budgets. We need to be proactive in protecting children, particularly our poorest children, from some of the potentially negative economic consequences that exit from the EU would bring.
New clause 32 would ensure the Government’s continued funding of projects currently funded by the European social fund that tackle disadvantage and regional  inequalities. I recognise that Ministers have said that they wish to guarantee that funds currently provided through these mechanisms by the European Union will be replaced or underwritten by the UK Government in the event of our leaving the EU. I want to see that written as an obligation in the Bill, which is what new clause 32 would do, so that following our withdrawal there is a commitment to a continuity of funding for projects that work to help disadvantaged children and young people.
New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a strategy for mitigating the risk that withdrawal from the EU might present to low-income families with children by ensuring that benefit rates would be reviewed annually, with any inflationary risks addressed. There is a major risk that the economic uncertainty caused by our withdrawal from the European Union will affect low-income families. Addressing any risks that Brexit poses to low-income families and disadvantaged young people would be a clear way to ensure that Brexit works for everyone.
As Members will know, poverty is not spread evenly, and some communities face particularly high levels of poverty and disadvantage. We know that child poverty in the UK is projected to rise, and that Brexit will present additional risks on top of what has already been modelled as a consequence of some of the Government’s austerity cuts to welfare benefits. If our trade relations result in a reduction of economic activity, with a knock-on effect on jobs and wages, that would clearly also be very damaging for low-income families.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) has said:
“British business will have to learn to get by in a different world.”
That is all very well, but what is absolutely clear is that disadvantaged families, and certainly children, cannot and should not be expected to do so.
There is a great risk that our withdrawal could compound child poverty due to the loss of European funding and inflationary pressures on our economy. I urge Ministers to look carefully at my new clauses 32 and 33, which would require them to think proactively about how to address those risks. So far, we have had no firm guarantees that they are even on the Ministers’ radar, but I hope that the Committee will unite around these important measures and stress their importance. I commend new clauses 31 to 33 to the House.
May I add my support to a couple of other new clauses? I strongly support and will vote in favour of new clause 13, which proposes keeping our continuing membership of the customs union on the table. I am absolutely convinced that that is a prerequisite for financial success for low-income families. I am also very pleased to support new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), in relation to regulation around the chemical sector. This is an issue of huge concern to businesses in my constituency, which have been happy to sign up to REACH and have seen its benefits. They are extremely worried that they will now have to go through a new and potentially expensive replica process, which is quite unnecessary. They feel they should not be disadvantaged compared with other competitors, or indeed with laxer standards than at present.
The Minister, who is no longer in the Chamber, asked us to accept a number of assurances from him about the Government’s intentions in the debates that have been held in this House, particularly in relation to amendment 7. I think that the will of the House was expressed very clearly on amendment 7—we had a vote and it was carried. The Government should respect the spirit and terms of that amendment, and I hope that Ministers will take that message on board. That is the way Parliament takes back control and expresses its will. I do not expect Ministers to seek to amend or weaken the provision on Report.

Eleanor Laing: Since the moment when Sir David Amess was in the Chair and asked hon. Members to speak for no more than five minutes or so, everyone has taken at least 10 or 11 minutes. That really says something about behaviour in the Chamber.

Edward Leigh: It is a truth universally acknowledged that one’s own speeches seem short and incisive, while others’ seem long and discursive. If I speak for more than five minutes, please order me to exit, Mrs Laing.
Frankly, there has been a lot of hype about this Bill. We have had nearly 70 hours of debate on it, which is all very welcome, but there has also been a lot of hype. All this Bill does is put into our own law what was previously in EU law. It does not change how we leave the EU. Therefore, I for one welcome the spirit of compromise that seems to have broken out today. I welcome the fact that we are all going to vote, if there is a vote, for amendment 400 and for the original amendment 381 that put the date in the Bill. Perhaps we should have put the date in the Bill in the first place, because Brexit means Brexit, Brexit means that we are leaving the EU and Brexit means that we are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. For all the hundreds of hours of debate, that is all that matters because we are obeying the instructions given to us by the British people.
I was slightly worried about amendment 400 when I was first told about it very kindly by the Whips Office over the weekend, but I listened to the Prime Minister’s assurance today that this measure would only be used to delay the exit date by a very short period, only in exceptional circumstances and only by an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. All that amendment 400 does is to ensure that this Bill—it will then be an Act—marches step by step in accord with our treaty obligations under article 50.
Make no mistake that, whatever amendment 7 says, it does not make much practical difference. The situation could, of course, be dealt with by simply withdrawing clause 9. The amendment prevents the Government from making preparatory orders, but it does not delay the process. I therefore welcome what the Minister has said today. He has been clear from the Dispatch Box—I say this to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has just again repeated the question—that the Government are not seeking to subvert the will of the House of Commons as expressed last week. That is good for us leavers, as we are leavers because we believe passionately in the sovereignty of Parliament. I welcome the fact that we are having 60 hours of debate and that we will come back to debate the Bill in another week. I welcome the fact that more legislation will be  needed. The more Bills, the more motions, the more affirmative orders—I welcome them all, because we cannot reverse this process.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that, yes, there will be an implementation period. During that period, we will be law takers, not law givers. To that extent, we will be a colony of the EU. That is why it has to be a short period, and it is why—this is a firm policy of the Government and the firm view of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members of Parliament—we will leave the single market and the customs union after that short implementation period. That does not necessarily mean that we will not be a member of a customs union or a single market, but we would not be a member of the regulatory single market, because if we were, we would not control our own borders.
I say to Members on the Government Front Bench, if they need any encouragement: I welcome the spirit of compromise today; I welcome the fact that we are going to be generous to EU citizens here and that we have made progress; and I welcome the fact that the Brexiteers are co-operating with every single compromise that the Government are prepared to make in order to take this process forward and ensure that we have a long and lasting friendship with our friends in Europe.

Helen Goodman: I would like to speak first about new clause 13, because, for my constituency, the customs union is absolutely vital. I have a lot of constituents involved in manufacturing—pharmaceuticals and the automotive industry, for example. On pharmaceuticals, I think Glaxo told the Health Committee yesterday that the cost it has already faced in making plans for how to deal with Brexit is £70 million. We keep asking Ministers for certainty, and there is none.
For farmers, this issue is also absolutely crucial. There is a big risk with the free trade agreements Conservative Members are arguing for that we get floods of cheap lamb imports coming in. That will destroy the uplands. It will destroy not just farming livelihoods but the British countryside.
On the automotive industry, my hon. Friends have spoken about the importance of having shared regulation. How do Conservative Members think the European Union will agree with them to have no tariffs if it thinks that we are going to compete on different regulatory standards? It is not going to agree that. Conservative Members need to get into the real world.
Let us look also at the scope for these new great, fantastic free trade agreements, taking New Zealand as an example. Its economy is the same size as the Greek economy. This is not some great, fabulous opportunity. All that the New Zealanders and the Australians want to do—whatever sentimentality people have about the Commonwealth—is to sell their agricultural produce into the British market.
Conservative Members were enthusiastic about the idea that they could do these deals quickly. In fact, because other parts of the world also have regional trading blocs, that is highly unlikely. Latin American countries, for example, belong to a regional trading block called Mercosur. They are going to be going at the pace of the slowest, not the fastest.
The reason why I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the customs union and the single market is the Irish border. Membership of the customs union is vital for the maintenance of the soft border, in a way that membership of the single market is not. That is because of the nature of free movement. What does free movement mean? It does not mean being able to go somewhere on holiday. It does not mean Schengen—we are not in Schengen now. Free movement means being able to have a job and to take part in the social security system elsewhere.
The way to deal with the free movement problem, which is undoubtedly the immigration problem that has been raised by our constituents on the doorsteps over the last two years, is to change the rules about who can work and who can be eligible for social security in this country; it is to stop giving out national insurance numbers like confetti, as we do at the moment. I am therefore pleased that we have had this separate moment to look at the customs union, and I hope that hon. Members will reflect more carefully on the great significance of the customs union for achieving what we want in Ireland.
I must say that I am not yet reassured by what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box about amendments 381 and 400. When amendment 7 was passed last week, there was a shift in power from the Executive to Parliament. With amendment 381, whether or not it is amended by amendment 400, we are seeing the Executive yank back control to set the exit date. What Ministers have not been able to explain to us this afternoon is what happens if the legislation under amendment 7 is not passed. They can still set the exit date.
I was going to say that Opposition Members see the Tory party as extremely unstable. We are not convinced that this Government, in their current form, will last the course. However, I could not say that nearly as fluently or as lucidly as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said it. She laid out the problems and the divisions far more fully than I ever could. But even if we do not look into the future, we can all be alarmed by what the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee this afternoon. That is why we cannot be confident in what this Government are doing, and that is why amendments 381 and 400 fatally undermine amendment 7.

Huw Merriman: It is a great pleasure to speak in the last half hour of the 64 hours of the Committee stage of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I am absolutely delighted to speak in support of amendment 400. I congratulate my hon. Friends on putting it forward. We now have a position akin to article 50, whereby we leave no later than two years from the trigger date. We know when that date will be, but we retain the flexibility should it be required. That shows a great compromise across the House, demonstrating to us and to the public at large that we are capable of finding a way through where we had some discord previously.
I listened intently to the points made by Opposition Members about requiring the Government to honour their commitment on amendment 7. The Government have done so. I therefore ask all those Members that the rest of the Bill that has not been amended be honoured on that basis as well. I very much hope that they have accepted that reciprocal commitment.
I have sat through eight hours in this Committee, and the key thing that strikes me is the lack of optimism and ambition that I have heard. That in no way reflects the country at large, this being the day when it has been announced that, for the very first time, the UK ranks first in the Forbes annual survey of the best countries for doing business. If Forbes had been tuning into this debate, it may well have been wondering if it had got the right country.
The reality is that the world is changing. We must of course look for trade with our European partners. The Prime Minister has set out quite clearly that we want to continue to trade with mainland Europe and to purchase the goods that we have always purchased from it, and we will continue to do so. However, let us take Africa, for example. Germany and Spain have declining populations. Africa has 1.2 billion people at present; by 2050, that will have doubled to 2.4 billion. There are trade opportunities for us to take advantage of. Remaining inside the customs union, as new clause 13 would have it, would not allow us to take advantage of those opportunities.

Wes Streeting: rose—

Huw Merriman: I will not give way because of the lack of time.
This also misses the point that we trade as part of the EU under WTO rules with a number of countries, such as the US, China, Hong Kong, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. To say that we cannot continue to trade with those countries under WTO rules when we already do so as part of the European Union misses the point.
I now come to the real point that I wish to make. During the referendum campaign, unlike many Members in this place I did not take a view. I chaired debates but I did not take any view. Instead, I listened to the arguments going on from both sides. I dare say that right hon. and hon. Members who took a view were not listening to both sides because they were so passionate about their own. I cannot remember any individual who wanted to leave the European Union arguing, “I fancy a bit of what Norway has got. I would like to leave the European Union and remain within the single market.” The customs union has also been mentioned in that context, but of course Norway is not part of the customs union. It is quite clear to most members of the public—it was certainly made clear by those on both sides of the argument—that the EU is effectively a brand. The substance of the EU is the single market and the customs union. If more people voted to leave the European Union than to remain, which was indeed the case, there is a very fair chance that those people knew what they were voting for, and certainly did not want to leave and then return through the back door, as many hon. Members have suggested.
This is the key part for me. I really believe—I put this respectfully—that many in this Chamber are seeking to re-engineer the arguments to get them on their side because they do not want to leave. Even though most of them voted to trigger article 50, so they have chosen to leave, they now want to redesign the terms. They are seeking to have the public on their side by asking, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned, that the public are asked what they think—as if we have  a spreadsheet big enough for that. The reality is that the majority of the public have voted to leave. They now look to the Executive to lead the negotiations, and they look to Parliament to support the negotiations and provide scrutiny, as it is doing. Ultimately, they want us to get on with the job and to be optimistic and ambitious about the future of this country, rather than sitting on our hands.

Peter Grant: I am grateful for the chance to contribute to tonight’s debate. First, I will deal with new clause 56, which is in my name and those of many other hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I am grateful to everybody who supported the new clause, which is designed to give legislative certainty to the people and businesses of Gibraltar. Having heard the Minister’s comments—a long, long time ago now—my understanding is that the Government of Gibraltar are happy that the assurances they have been given provide the certainty they are looking for. On that basis, I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, but I want to reserve the ability to bring it back at a later stage should the position of the Government of Gibraltar change.
We have heard a lot this afternoon and tonight about the wonderful opportunities for trade that await the United Kingdom if we leave the customs union and the single market. I welcome the fact that although the Minister repeatedly said that we would be leaving the customs union and the single market, he did not say—I listened very carefully—that we had to do so. He did not say that it was impossible to remain in either or both when we leave the European Union, even though a lot of people on the Brexit side have said that. That is simply not true; it is perfectly possible to leave the European Union without leaving those two trading agreements. The Government’s decision to leave them is purely political and it was not part of the referendum, despite what some people say. It is not yet too late for the Government to accept that that is a catastrophically bad political decision and that it should be reversed, even if doing so would come at a high political cost for some.
Earlier, we heard the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) justifying the need to leave the single market because the losing side in the referendum said that we had to. I am quite happy to go through some of the things that were in the losing Conservative manifesto in Scotland about what would happen if people voted SNP. If we are going to be bound by the promises that the losing side made, the SNP is in for a bit of a field day.
I still find it astonishing that there are Labour Members looking for a complete exit from the European Union. Only today, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a massive victory to Uber drivers and workers by ruling that Uber is a taxi business—surprise, surprise; that is what it is. The ruling has given Uber drivers massively better employment protection than they would have had without it. I cannot believe that any Labour Member would argue to remove those drivers from the protection of the European Court and leave their employment rights at the mercy of a Conservative Government, but that is what at least one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), argued for just now. I know that she is very much in the minority in her party, but I am astonished that a Labour Member can express such views.
The same hon. Member commented on how much of the UK’s trade is done outside the European Union. She forgot to mention that if we include the trade that relies on trade deals that the European Union has already made with big trading nations, more than 60% of the UK’s trade effectively depends on the European Union. When we build in the trade deals that the European Union is in the process of finalising, the figure increases to 88%. In other words, in a couple of years’ time, 12% of the United Kingdom’s overseas trade will not depend on our membership of the European Union. Twelve per cent. of our trade will probably be guaranteed, but the other 88% is up for grabs. Believe me, a lot of other trading nations will be very keen to nibble away at that 88%.
I want to comment on the confusion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). His stamina also seems to have deserted him, although I cannot say that I blame him. He said tonight, as he has said on several occasions, that he cannot understand the contradiction between the Government’s statement that we can have free, open and easy trade across international borders, and their insistence in the run-up to the independence referendum in Scotland—where, by his own admission, he shared a platform with some people who are now on the Conservative Benches—that that would not be possible.
I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. There is no inconsistency. What the Government are saying now is correct, and what they and he said in 2014 was complete and utter rubbish. There is absolutely no need, in today’s modern world, for an international border to be anything more than a line that demarcates the jurisdictions of different Parliaments, Governments and courts. That is how international borders are seen all over western Europe, and that is the kind of international border we should be seeking. It will be difficult if not impossible to maintain open borders, even the open border we want to maintain across the island of Ireland. It will be difficult to deliver what the people of Northern Ireland so desperately want to maintain if we leave the customs union and the single market.
By drawing red lines on decisions about the customs union and the single market, which were not part of the referendum question, the Government have significantly and, I think, disastrously restricted their ability to come up with solutions in relation to trade across the channel, cross-border issues in Northern Ireland and so many of the headaches now facing the United Kingdom that could have been and might still be achieved if the Government would just have the humility to say that they got it wrong.
Let us remember that this Government were in the Supreme Court this time last year trying to prevent this supposedly sovereign Parliament from having a say on article 50, and they suffered a humiliating defeat. Last week, they were in the Chamber trying to prevent this so-called sovereign Parliament from having a say on the final deal, and they suffered a humiliating defeat. The Prime Minister called an unnecessary election to increase her majority, and she suffered a humiliating setback. Surely the lesson of the past 12 months is that the Government need to learn some humility. As regards  the customs union and the single market, why do they not just fess up that they got it wrong and then put this right before it is too late?

Eleanor Laing: I call Suella Fernandes.

Huw Merriman: Last again.

Suella Fernandes: Saving the best till last, perhaps.
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 400, to which I am proud to have put my name. I applaud the constructive efforts and sincere energies invested in the amendment by right hon. and hon. Members across the Brexit divide, uniting our party and working in collaboration with the Government to improve the Bill and to reflect the genuine concerns voiced during that process. I pay tribute to the Front Bench team and the civil servants, as well as all those who have contributed to enriching the passage of the Bill during the extensive opportunities we have had for scrutiny, debate and discussion.
Amendment 400 represents a very sensible and pragmatic way forward in resolving some of the concerns raised. It provides legal certainty because, by placing the exit date in the Bill, we will have confirmed the time and date when the UK will be leaving the EU in accordance with article 50. It will ensure that the operative provisions of clauses 1 to 6 apply from that date, and it avoids a potential failure in the construction of clause 3 in that, if exit day was later than 29 March 2019, the conversion of direct EU legislation might fail. That is because clause 3(1) applies to such legislation only in
“so far as operative immediately before exit day”,
but that legislation will cease to be operative when we leave the EU in accordance with article 50. It also limits ministerial discretion, which, after all, is to some extent what Brexit is about. Brexit is about restoring power to Parliament and about giving elected representatives a say. Finally, the amendment complements those two objectives by providing a degree of flexibility on the exit day. The Prime Minister confirmed earlier today that the date might be changed only in exceptional circumstances and for a short amount of extra time.
I want to comment on the Bill more generally. I think that 2017 has been an extraordinarily successful year for Brexit. The Government have triggered article 50, supported by a convincing and large majority of this House. The Prime Minister has moved us on to phase 2 of the negotiations, and we are now at the point of discussing the exciting and new opportunities for future trade. The Bill has also been very successful in its passage.
I want to emphasise the fact that we are making progress. Everybody here in this House has been entrusted with the instruction from the British people to deliver Brexit. We want a smooth and a meaningful Brexit. That is an honour and it is also a duty. The British people are watching, and the world is watching. They might not be interested in the technicalities of constitutional law, or know exactly what the common commercial policy means, but they want us to get on with the job, and to do otherwise would be a gross betrayal of that duty.
We have to talk up the opportunities. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world. We have the world’s language. We are leaders of the Commonwealth. We have a legal system emulated around the world, a  parliamentary system envied by other countries, and financial services that are unrivalled. Britain will succeed after Brexit, and we have to find ways in which we can deliver Brexit, not reasons why we cannot.

Angela Smith: I wish to speak briefly, as chair of the all-party group on the chemical industries, to new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). I am not going to rehearse the arguments that she has already made; she gave an incredibly strong account of why we should stay within REACH. It suffices only to say that the chemicals industry does not want to see any drop in regulatory standards. It wants to stay within REACH, for obvious reasons, not least because it wants a smooth transition post-Brexit, and staying within REACH makes sense in that regard. When an industry as big and as important to our export profile as chemicals is so vociferous in its argument that it wants to stay within REACH, this House and every Member of this House should take notice and think very carefully about how they proceed on that point.
The remaining comments I want to make are on new clause 13. It really saddens me to say this, but I am very sad to see those on my own Front Bench making an argument about new clause 13 that I believe to be erroneous. Their argument tonight has been—on paper, if not on the Floor of the House—that the clause actually ties us into the customs union. Nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) made it absolutely clear that this clause is about making sure that the option of staying in the customs union is not taken off the table.
I shall not go into all the various arguments that have been made, because we have not got time, but I do want to ask every Member of this House, particularly my colleagues, to bear in mind the importance of not ruling out membership of the customs union. Voting for the new clause tonight will be an act of conscience that will send a powerful signal to the country and the Government that we understand the importance, potentially, of the customs union and the importance of giving the Government the strongest possible negotiating position when it comes to that regulatory alignment that we have heard so much about in recent days.
On Ireland—I will finish on this point—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East made the case about avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, and made the point that that is one of the key reasons why this new clause, and the potential for staying in the customs union, is so important.

Eleanor Laing: Order. We have hardly any time left. Ireland was debated last week.

Angela Smith: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said that Ireland raised the point about the customs union and the hard border. That is why it is relevant to this clause. It is about trade between those two countries—the UK and the Republic. The point is that it is also about avoiding the hard border in relation to our other, very important, relationships with Ireland.
I ask every Member of this House to bear in mind the emotional and powerful speech made last week by our hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is really important that we remember those days when the hard border between the two countries, and the troubles, delivered so much devastation, hatred and agony to the people of Northern Ireland. On those grounds alone, I ask people to support new clause 13 tonight, and I ask Members on the Opposition Benches, including Members of my own party, to support the new clause, because to do so is in the interests of the country and in the interests particularly of our friends in Northern Ireland.

Joanna Cherry: I rise to speak to new clause 44, which is in my name and those of a number of Opposition Members, and was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins).
This very important new clause would require the Government, a year after the Bill is passed, to prepare an independent evaluation of the Act in respect of the health and social care sector across the UK, after consulting with the devolved Governments. As well as cross-party support on the Opposition Benches—I am very grateful for the support of the Labour party and others—it has the support of 57 organisations that work in the sector. It was inspired by the Camphill movement, which will be familiar to many Members. It has a base in my constituency, in Tiphereth in the Pentland hills. The movement has been inspiring people to realise the potential of those with learning and other disabilities for many years. Camphill has many bases across Scotland. I very much hope Scottish Conservative MPs who have a base in their constituency will support the new clause, because it is not about stopping Brexit or confounding the Bill but about measuring the impact of the Act on employment and funding in the health and social care sector.
I am delighted that so many organisations across the United Kingdom have lent their support to new clause 44. I say to those on the Government Front Bench that tonight there are many people across the UK watching from the 57 organisations in the health and social care sector. They were watching earlier at Prime Minister’s questions when the Prime Minister told us how much healthcare matters to her and how dear the NHS is to her. I ask them to remember that many, many EU nationals work in the health and social care sector across the UK, not just in organisations such as Camphill. I would also say that EU funding has been very important to those organisations.
I ask the Government to set party politics aside for once and support the new clause. I ask them to look at the list of 57 organisations who support it—many Government Members will have them in their constituencies—because they want to know about the impact of the Act on the health and social care sector. All the new clause asks the Government to do is commission an independent evaluation of the Act’s impact on the sector.
There are many political things I could say about the Bill, but I am not going to say them this evening. With an eye on the time, I am going to appeal to the Government’s decency—for the record, I say to the many organisations watching tonight that I am sorry I have so little time—and ask them to throw party politics  aside for once. Give us something out of the Bill and support the new clause. It has cross-party support on the Opposition Benches and support across the nations of these islands.

Stephen Kinnock: I raise to support amendment 43. Hon. Members will know that this year marks the 150th anniversary of Walter Bagehot’s “The English Constitution”. At the heart of Bagehot’s masterpiece is the definition of the expressive function of this place, meaning that it is our duty as parliamentarians to express the mind of the people on all matters that come before it.
Amendments 381 and 400 are a betrayal of the expressive function of this House. They are a silent coup d’état masquerading as a technical necessity, so before we go through the Division Lobby this evening, let us reflect on what Bagehot would think of them, and of the Government’s behaviour throughout this process. The fact is that he would be appalled. He would be appalled at the attempt to sideline Parliament on the most important issue that has faced our country since the second world war, and he would be appalled by the direct assault on the expressive function of this place.
There is, however, a broader point that goes to the heart of our political culture. Bagehot always believed, and I have always agreed with him, that Britain is a land of common sense, compromise and realism, but the Brexit referendum has replaced moderation with division and realism with dogma. I say that the wild men of Brexit have been allowed to drive this debate for too long. I say that amendment 43 represents an opportunity for us in this House this evening to take back control and to return moderation, compromise, realism and pragmatism to their rightful place at the heart of our political system and culture.
I therefore urge hon. Members across the House to think carefully and deeply about the fundamental democratic and constitutional role and functions of this House before they walk through the Division Lobbies this evening. I urge them to think carefully about the spirit and purpose of Walter Bagehot’s work. It is 150 years since the publication of his words about the expressive function of this House, but they are as relevant today as they were then—perhaps even more so, because the principles of our parliamentary democracy are at stake. Give the populists and ideologues an inch and they will take a mile, and when the Government are prepared to collude with them, that is a potent force indeed. That is why amendment 43 is so important and why I urge hon. Members to vote for it this evening.

Wera Hobhouse: I rise to speak to amendment 120. Since I arrived in this place in June and started taking part in the Brexit debate, one thing has intrigued me: have the Prime Minister and many other remain MPs changed their minds? We all know that the Prime Minister supported remaining in June 2016. Has she changed her mind since? This is important because she and her Government use one big argument for pressing on with Brexit: it is the will of the people. Is it? For the Government and the hard Brexiteers, the referendum result is fixed forever. The people cannot change their minds. The Prime Minister and other MPs can change their minds, but the people cannot.
As the months go by and the Government’s legitimacy for implementing their version of Brexit becomes less and less legitimate, obeying the will of the people becomes the last remaining legitimacy, but nobody bothers to find out what the will of the people is now. Indeed, the last to be asked are the people themselves. Hon. Members are right to say that Britain is a parliamentary democracy, but now we have had a referendum, there is no obvious mechanism for updating, confirming or reviewing the referendum result. The 2017 general election provided no mandate for overturning the referendum result. It is obvious that 650 MPs cannot update, confirm or review the decision taken by 33 million people, but the people themselves can, and the people themselves should be allowed to change their minds, in either direction.
There are people now who voted remain who feel that the decision has been taken and the Government should get on with it. There are others who voted leave who fear that they will be let down by politicians who have used them for their own ends. The will of the people is a mixed bag. The Government are legislating for a Brexit in the name of the people. Their problem is that they might find themselves pressing ahead without the people’s consent. Last week, Parliament voted to give itself a vote on the deal. This was a welcome step forward, but what started with the people must end with the people. The people must sign off or reject the deal. Only the people can finish what the people have started.

Alex Cunningham: I rise to speak to new clause 61. CF Fertilisers owns Britain’s only two complexes still making fertilisers in this country. Its comments are simple enough. David Hopkins writes:
“Right across the country, the chemical industry has made a huge investment into REACH compliance. It is not perfect – far from it. It is however becoming an international standard, and our compliance with – and involvement in – such a regulation is essential in enabling us to continue trading effectively across border, both from an import point of view but much more significantly from an export perspective.”
Neil Hollis of BASF says:
“BASF does not take a rigid view on whether REACH is the best possible regulation for current and new chemicals, but it is established, tested and most importantly, a requirement for selling chemicals within the EU. Regardless of what model of Brexit any of us prefer, that isn’t going to change…Our supply chains, operating between ten UK manufacturing plants, and many more across Europe, require clarity that materials can be legally processed and sold, in transition, and after the UK has left the EU.”
Philip Bailey, general manager of Lucite International, reminds me of the investment that takes place in my constituency. He says:
“We have many concerns about the implications of Brexit on our ability to trade effectively and competitively within the EU, where we export 60-70% of our products.”
The Chemical Industries Association reminds us that UK companies hold 6,364 registrations covering 2,563 substances. In that respect, the UK is second only to Germany. The association says:
“The UK Government’s decision to leave the single market will have significant implications.”
On Monday I raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister after her EU summit speech. I asked whether she could offer some reassurance to the chemical companies that the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation would apply after we left the EU and beyond the implementation phase.  Sadly, she had no such reassurance to give, dismissing my concerns and those of the industry as just another area for negotiators to talk about. This is about so much more than that. The very future of our chemical industry is at stake. I fear that if we do not retain a system that enables our chemical companies to remain within REACH, some of the forward planning that we hear about will not be for the UK; it will be for elsewhere, and we will pay for that in terms of investment and jobs.
For Teesside, which leads the world in so many ways in chemicals, the outcome could be particularly bad. We need Ministers to spell out very specifically how the UK will ensure that our chemical companies have the business environment and associated regulations that will guarantee their future trade.

Geraint Davies: I rise to support amendment 120, which would give the people the final say.
People whom I meet in Swansea who voted in good faith to leave the EU on the basis of more money, market access and less migration, and to take control, are saying to me now, “This is not what I voted for.” They were told by the Foreign Secretary that they would have £350 million a week more for the NHS. The Financial Times has just told us that we will lose £350 million a week. The London School of Economics has told us that inflation is 1.7% higher than it would have been otherwise, at 2.7%.
The average worker is losing a week’s wages every year thanks to this decision. That is not what people voted for. They are told that they will have to pay a £40 billion divorce bill—£1,000 for every family. That is not what they voted for. In 2015, they were told by the Conservatives that we would be part of the single market, which we may not be. We are haemorrhaging jobs as various institutions relocate. That is not what people voted for. They were told that they would take back control, but it is clear from clause 9 of this shoddy Bill that Ministers are still seeking to take powers—Henry VIII powers—to change things as they think appropriate. That is not what people voted for.
There are Members who seem to assume implicitly that nothing has changed, but the latest polling by Survation shows that half the people want a referendum on the exit package and only a third do not. What is more, 51% of people want to stay in the European Union and 41% now want to leave. The facts are changing, and as Keynes said,
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
I think that we have a democratic duty to give people the final say. I predict that this Christmas, as families throughout Britain come together to talk about the issue, the leavers will be saying, “Actually, I will think again”, and the remainers will be saying, “I will stay where I am.” There has been a shift, and we need to reflect that. The great majority of politicians here know that it is bad for Britain to leave, yet they are going ahead with it although the majority of people have woken up to the fact that it is not in their interests. It is an absolute democratic disgrace that we are pushing it forward in this absurd way. My prediction is that there will be a final-say referendum at the end of next year, and that we will step back from the precipice.

Chris Leslie: This is an incredibly important Bill. New clause 13 would keep open the option for the United Kingdom to stay in the customs union, which is something I hope particularly my hon. Friends will support. We must avoid that hard border, particularly between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We do not want our manufacturing industry to be turned upside down, given all the jobs at stake and the potential of Brexit austerity hitting our constituents for years to come. I do not want that on my conscience. We have to act now, which is why I shall press new clause 13 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 114, Noes 320.

Question accordingly negatived.
More than eight hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 11 September).
The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Clause 14

Interpretation

Amendments proposed: 381, in clause14,page10,line25 leave out from “means” to “(and” in line 26 and insert
“29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.”
This amendment removes the power for a Minister of the Crown to appoint exit day by regulations and ensures that exit day is fixed at 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. for all purposes.
Amendment 399, page10,line26,leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) to (2C)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 400 and signposts, in the definition of “exit day”, the existence of the new subsections that are being inserted into Clause 14 by amendment 400.
Question put (single Question on amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown), That amendments 381 and 399 be made.—(Mr Baker.)
The House divided:
Ayes 319, Noes 294.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendments 381 and 399 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 349, page10,line46,leave out
“for a term of more than 2 years” —(Paul Blomfield.)
This amendment would prevent Ministers using delegated powers to create criminal offences which carry custodial sentences.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 295, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments made: 382, page11,line24,leave out from “Act” to end of line 32 and insert
“references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 381 and ensures that references to exit day in the Bill and other legislation operate correctly in relation to the time as well as the date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 400, page11,line32,at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(2B) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
(2C) In subsections (2A) and (2B) “the Treaties” means the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”—(Mr Baker.)
This amendment confers power on a Minister of the Crown to amend the definition of “exit day” in Clause 14(1) if the day or time on or at which the United Kingdom ceases to be a member of the EU is different from that specified in the definition. There is also power to amend Clause 14(2) in consequence of amending the definition of “exit day”.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
New Clause 44

Duty to make arrangements for an independent evaluation: health and social care

‘(1) No later than 1 year after this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the impact of this Act on the health and social care sector.
(2) The evaluation carried out by an independent person to be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland departments, must analyse and assess—
(a) the effects of this Act on the funding of the health and social care sector;
(b) the effects of this Act on the health and social care workforce;
(c) the impact of this Act on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social care sector; and
(d) any other such matters relevant to the impact of this Act upon the health and care sector.
(3) The person undertaking an evaluation under subsection (1) above must, in preparing an evaluation report, consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department;
(b) providers of health and social care services;
(c) individuals requiring health and social care services;
(d) organisations working for and on behalf of individuals requiring health and social care services; and
(e) any persons whom the Secretary of State deems relevant.
(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a report of the evaluation, lay a copy of the report before Parliament.’—(Joanna Cherry.)
This new clause would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the Act upon the health and social care sector to be made after consulting the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department, service providers, those requiring health and social care services, and others.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 294, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 54

Implementation and transition

‘(1) Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to secure a transition period prior to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement of not less than two years in duration, during which—
(a) access between EU and UK markets should continue on the terms existing prior to exit day,
(b) the structures of EU rules and regulations existing prior to exit day shall be maintained,
(c) the UK and EU shall continue to take part in the level of security cooperation existing prior to exit day,
(d) new processes and systems to underpin the future partnership between the EU and UK can be satisfactorily implemented, including a new immigration system and new regulatory arrangements,
(e) financial commitments made by the United Kingdom during the course of UK membership of the EU shall be honoured.
(2) No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.’—(Mr Kenneth Clarke.)
This new clause would ensure that the objectives set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech are given the force of law and, if no implementation and transition period is achieved in negotiations, then exit day may not be triggered by a Minister of the Crown. The appointment of an ‘exit day’ would therefore require a fresh Act of Parliament in such circumstances.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 296, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 15

Index of defined expressions

Amendment made: 401, page12,line37,leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2C)”—(Mr Baker.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 400 and alters the index of defined expressions to show that the new subsections which are being inserted into Clause 14 by amendment 400 are also relevant to the meaning of “exit day” and related expressions.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8

Consequential, transitional, transitory and saving provision

Amendments made: 402,page53,line44, leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2C)”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 400 and ensures that the definition of “exit day” and related expressions which is being inserted into Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 refers to the new subsections which are being inserted into Clause 14 by amendment 400.
403,page56,line4, leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2C)”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 400 and ensures that the definition of “exit day” and related expressions which is being inserted into section 1 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) refers to the new subsections which are being inserted into Clause 14 by amendment 400.
404,page56,line17, leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2C)”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 400 and ensures that the definition of “exit day” and related expressions in the definition of “subordinate legislation” which is being inserted into section 37 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) refers to the new subsections which are being inserted into Clause 14 by amendment 400.
405,page57,line20, leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2C)”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 400 and ensures that the definition of “exit day” and related expressions in the definitions of “The Treaties” and “the EU Treaties” which are being inserted into Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) refers to the new subsections which are being inserted into Clause 14 by amendment 400.—(Mr Baker.)
Schedule 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19

Commencement and short title

Amendment proposed: 120, page14,line40,leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force once following a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should approve the United Kingdom and Gibraltar exit package proposed by HM Government at conclusion of the negotiations triggered by Article 50(2) for withdrawal from the European Union or remain a member of the European Union.
(2A) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.
(2B) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—‘Do you support the Government’s proposed new agreement between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar and the European Union or Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?’
(2C) The Secretary of State may make regulations by statutory instrument on the conduct of the referendum.”—(Tom Brake.)
This amendment is intended to ensure that before March 2019 (or the end of any extension to the two-year negotiation period) a referendum on the terms of the deal has to be held and provides the text of the referendum question.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 23, Noes 319.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).
Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the position of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union now untenable? He said that he would resign if the former Deputy Prime Minister was forced out.
Have you received any indication, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the former Deputy Prime Minister will come to the House and correct the misleading statement that he made to us?

Eleanor Laing: Order. That is simply not a point of order. We are dealing with serious business here, and it needs no further comment from me.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS

Ordered,
That Simon Hart be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Mr Gary Streeter be added.—(Ms McVey,)

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Simon Hart be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr Gary Streeter be added.—(Ms McVey.)

Eleanor Laing: The Public Bill Office has informed me that a Member’s vote was unfortunately missed from the counting process earlier today. The correct results are as follows.
In respect of the Question relating to local authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 231. Of those Members representing constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 294 and the Noes were 221, so the Ayes still have it. In respect of the Question relating to combined authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 231. Of those Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 286 and the Noes were 195, so the Ayes still have it. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is important to set the record straight.

PETITION - CLOSURE OF RBS BRANCHES IN EAST KILBRIDE, STRATHAVEN AND LESMAHAGOW

Lisa Cameron: I rise to present a petition regarding the closure of Royal Bank of Scotland branches in East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow,
Declares that closure of the RBS branches in Lesmahagow and Strathaven, and indeed many other rural branches across Scotland, unfairly effects rural communities that will have to travel further to withdraw their own money or seek monetary advice from their own bank; further that RBS is 72%-owned by taxpayer and rural taxpayers have been unfairly targeted in the closures; further that it could be of serious detriment to our local rural economies; and further that the closure of these local branches will have the biggest negative impact on the most vulnerable people in our community such as the elderly and the disabled.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government, as a major shareholder in RBS, to undertake a full review into the decision by the bank to close a third of its branches in Scotland; further that the government acknowledges the targeted impact this will have on rural communities; and further that the Government will urge RBS to rethink its list of proposed branch closures.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002093]

PETITION - URGENT TREATMENT CENTRE, WESTMORLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL

Tim Farron: I rise to present a petition calling for an urgent treatment centre at the Westmorland General Hospital. There are 2,500 petitioners.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that many people in South Lakes have to endure long journeys to the Accident and Emergency units at Royal Lancaster Infirmary in Lancaster and Furness General Hospital in Barrow as the Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal does not have the necessary facilities to cope with the majority of Accident and Emergency cases.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring an Urgent Treatment Centre to Westmorland General Hospital, not only to provide urgent care closer to home for South Lakes residents, but to also help relieve pressure on the Accident and Emergency units at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary and Furness General Hospital and ensure ambulances are not stuck waiting there in long queues.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002094]

PETITION - CONGESTION ON THE A40 BETWEEN WITNEY AND OXFORD

Robert Courts: I rise to present a petition calling for action to be taken on congestion on the A40.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Witney and West Oxfordshire,
Declares that current high levels of traffic congestion on the A40 between Witney and Oxford have become unsustainable and the residents of Witney and West Oxfordshire require a permanent solution; further that the Government should bring forward  proposals for improvements to be made to the A40; further that West Oxfordshire residents and businesses unduly suffer due to current poor provision for roads, cycleways and public transport; further that changes should be made to the A40 to ensure the area’s ongoing commercial and residential success; and further that with plans for significant further development at the Oxfordshire Cotswolds Garden Village, alongside other projected growth in the area, the aforementioned factors will continue to worsen over time.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Government to offer proposals and relevant expertise to provide a long-term permanent solution to the congestion issues on the A40 between Witney and Oxford as soon as possible.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002095]

LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stuart Andrew.)

David Drew: I am grateful that, at this late hour, I have the opportunity to secure the Adjournment debate. I am grateful, too, to see a few Members still here, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on the Labour Front Bench, and the Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to associate myself with the earlier comments in respect of your colleague, Mr Deputy Speaker: he is a good friend of mine, and I can only imagine what he is going through.
At this auspicious time, with yet another Cabinet Minister falling on his sword, I do think that we ought to get back to some reality after the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and talk about housing and what it means, and the threat of homelessness to far too many of our people. However, I come here today not to pick fault or to criticise but to try to find solutions. I believe that the Government need some help in this area, and one of the ways in which they could meet their laudable aim of providing 300,000 new units a year would be to recognise that local authority housing has a part to play.
I am grateful for the help I have received in preparing for this debate from the Local Government Association, the District Councils Network, the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group and my own council, Stroud District Council, to which I will largely be referring. I am also grateful to the researchers who have helped me with this: Jessica Cobbett, Jessie Hoskin and Vicky Temple.
I make no apology for using Stroud as an exemplar. It is the authority that I associate myself with, having been a councillor there on two previous occasions, and I know the area very well. It is also a good example because it is an authority that has now bought its stock, thanks to the Government’s initiative, which we very much welcome. For £92 million, we effectively own our 5,000 units. That is a good thing, but it comes at a cost, as I will explain in a minute.
We have been able to build 230 units of accommodation over the past few years, which is a considerable achievement for a relatively small district council. To illustrate the impact of that on Stroud, I can tell the House that we still have a waiting list of 2,275 people, which is estimated to be about 51.4% of the shortfall in social housing, according to the local authority district measurement. That shows the scale of the problem. We need to replicate those 230 houses on a regular basis. An additional problem is that Stroud is included in the same local housing allowance area as Gloucester, which is a lower rent area. So, because Stroud has higher rents, the differential between the benefit available and the rents charged means that many of our residents in the private sector are disadvantaged. That is the reason that they are looking for local authority housing.
I hope that, in this debate, we can look at areas in which we can make progress. We are not just dealing with statistics; we are dealing with real, living individuals. I shall give the House two examples to illustrate how the problem is affecting people in my constituency. We were recently approached by a very young family living in  totally unsuitable accommodation. They have been waiting a year for resettling, but whenever they bid, they are unsuccessful. Likewise, we heard from a lady with two young children who is renting a one-bedroom flat in the private sector. The accommodation is totally unsuitable and in a poor state of repair. Every time she bids, she fails, and she is around 300th on the list. That shows the scale of the problem in areas such as Stroud.
To be fair, the Government have looked at ways in which they might begin to address the problem. On page 63 of the Red Book, they say that
“the Budget will lift Housing Revenue Account borrowing caps for councils in areas of high affordability pressure, so they can build more council homes. Local authorities will be invited to bid for increases in their caps from 2019-20, up to a total of £1 billion by the end of 2021-22.”
Stroud is in this dilemma, because it has reached its borrowing cap.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the delay of a year in lifting the borrowing cap is too long? Also, the fact that the borrowing cap has been lifted by only £1 billion, rather than the £22 billion if it was removed completely, means that it will be inadequate to deal with our national crisis.

David Drew: I totally accept that. The point I am making to the Minister is that Stroud has reached the cap. We are trying to do our bit to overcome the immediate housing problems in Stroud, and yet we are unable to build any more houses. The situation is made worse, however, by the fact that 70% of the money goes back to the Government whenever a unit of council accommodation is sold under right to buy. We have bought the stock, and we are trying to do our bit, but we face a borrowing cap that has been totally imposed on us without any consideration of the value of the asset that we have. Then, the Government still reap the benefits from our accommodation when units are sold, so I ask the Minister to consider that. If we are to be part of the solution, how is that an incentive? How is that fair? How is it in any way reasonable?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The situation is slightly different in my constituency back in Northern Ireland. Some 1,000 people are on the priority list, with some 4,000 on the list overall, so there is a real need for housing. One of the key sources of need in my constituency—I suspect things are the same in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—comes from young married couples who cannot buy a house because houses are too dear, so they need social housing. Does the hon. Gentleman have the same problem in his area? Other than by building more social housing, which is what he and I want, how could the Government address the issue?

David Drew: Of course I want to build more social units. The leader of Stroud District Council—Councillor Steve Lydon, who is a good friend of mine—came to see the shadow Housing Minister and has written to the Prime Minister to ask for help with this particular problem. We are pleased to be a pilot area for business rates retention. That helps with the problem of potentially negative revenue support grants, which affected our  ability to do some of the things that we would like to do with housing, but this is a different matter. This is about the housing revenue account and about allowing Stroud the freedom to go on and do what the Government want local authorities to do, which is to provide the answer to the immediate housing problems. This is about having the vision to look back and to look forward.
The last time we genuinely met housing targets was in the 1950s, when that well-known socialist Harold Macmillan was able to prove that public authority housing was the best way to deal with a housing crisis. He was convinced of that, and I am convinced that we can play our part.

Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case for his local authority to be able to build more houses, although the circumstances are difficult. Does he agree that we also need to ask the Minister about the 50% of local authorities which, after being encouraged by the Government to sell off their local housing stock to housing associations, no longer have a housing revenue account? What should they do when all their housing stock has been transferred to social housing associations?

David Drew: I am largely talking about the role of the local authority, and we had that issue, but we defeated large-scale voluntary transfer. That happened the last time I was an MP, and I actually led the campaign against the Conservative council. We won because the tenants decided that it was important that we kept local authority housing not for themselves, but for the generations that follow. I am pleased because we still have the ability to do the things that we need to do both strategically and in reality by building our own houses.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On tenant participation in council housing, does my hon. Friend agree that no estate should be redeveloped anywhere in the country without the agreement of the tenants who live in that estate? There should be no bulldozing, no ghettoising, and no pushing tenants out.

David Drew: Of course, and to be fair, that was how large-scale voluntary transfer was supposed to work. Sadly, because of the way that debates were often handled—the manipulation and the propaganda—it did not work that way, but thankfully in Stroud we saw through that and kept our stock.
To add to our dilemma, we are still trying to do other things. I am not here to talk about private renting or the housing association answer, but Stroud District Council has a good reputation for trying to have an impact in those different areas. To add to the frustration, in the order of 5,800 units of accommodation have been given planning permission, but we have no ability to bring forward the development of those sites. That adds to the problem of a lack of affordable units, which means that the local authority is even more crucial to how we deal with housing issues today.
There is support across the political spectrum. The Local Government Association and the District Councils Network, both of which are Conservative-led, are adamant that local authorities can be part of the solution, so it is vital that we be given the tools, and that the barriers and hurdles are removed. Otherwise, the Government will  never reach their 300,000 target, which is a steep climb as it is, given that they are at just over half that number of units per year. We all have to do our part.
Although the Minister is principally here to answer on local authority housing, I ask him to recognise that planning is part of the problem. We would love to have “use it or lose it” and the opportunity for planning permission to be “lost” to the local authority, so that it had the traction to start to solve our immediate problem. Yesterday, a number of things were said about the new homes bonus. I have not yet quite got my head round how that will benefit or disadvantage Stroud, but that incentive to bring forward new units of accommodation is important. However, that is all unimportant if we are not able to provide the right type of accommodation in the right places.
The galling thing is that people now want to move into local authority accommodation because the houses are of better quality. It is not the lender of last resort. We talk about energy efficiency, conservation and how we are trying to bear down on carbon, which is so important in the building industry; local authority housing is leading the way. This is not about trying to dump people in a council house as a cheap alternative; it is now a genuine choice that people are pursuing.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister—he has plenty of time to respond—to please give Stroud and other authorities in a similar situation freedom from the cap. Secondly, can we please renegotiate the idea that 70% clawback from every sale is fair or justified? Then we will be part of the Government’s solution, not part of their problem.

Alok Sharma: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) on securing this important debate on local authority housing, and I commend him on the manner in which he has presented his point of view.
Successive Governments over many decades have not overseen the building of enough homes in the right places. We are determined to address that, and we are making progress. Last year, there was a net addition of 217,000 homes across England—the highest number in almost a decade—and housing was front and centre in the recent Budget, in which there was a commitment of at least £44 billion over the next five years to address the broken housing market. That includes the £15 billion of new financial support announced in the Budget—the biggest budget for housing in decades. More money was announced for infrastructure and to help small and medium-sized builders. There were more financial guarantees for the house building sector and a revamp of a more muscular Homes and Communities Agency; and, of course, there was more support for local authorities to get more homes built. I will return to that point shortly.
Of course, providing good-quality, affordable homes for people who need them most is an absolute priority for this Government—Members on both sides of the House can all agree on that—and we are making progress on delivering those homes. Since 2010, more than 357,000 new affordable homes have been delivered through the affordable homes programme, including 128,000 homes for social rent, but we recognise that there is much more to do. That was why the Prime Minister recently announced an extra £2 billion to deliver new affordable housing, including for social rent, taking our total investment in  the affordable homes programme between 2016 and 2021 to £9 billion. David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, described that extra money as
“a watershed moment for the nation.”
Local authorities, as well as housing associations, will be able to bid for the money, which will go where it is most needed—areas of acute affordability pressure.
As the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, the Budget provided a further boost through the decision to increase local authority housing revenue account borrowing caps by a total of £1 billion. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) talked about increasing HRA headroom and, as at 31 March 2017, there was £3.5 billion of headroom available in housing revenue accounts across England. Again, we will deploy that £1 billion in areas of high affordability pressure where authorities are ready to start building.
Stroud District Council has previously raised the issue of the borrowing cap with my Department and, as the hon. Member for Stroud noted, its leaders have written to the Prime Minister. I sense that the decision to lift the HRA caps by up to £1 billion is welcome news. From 2019-20, local authorities will be able to bid for increases in their caps of up to a total of £1 billion by the end of 2021-22. We will be releasing information in the spring on how councils can apply for an increase in their HRA cap.
The Budget also more than doubled investment in the housing infrastructure fund to £5 billion, and of course an additional £400 million has been made available to regenerate run-down estates. On top of all that extra funding, we are giving local authorities and housing associations more certainty over their rental income up to 2025. From 2020, they will be able to increase rents by up to CPI plus 1%, and the feedback I have received suggests that the sector will build more homes more quickly as a direct result of receiving that certainty.
All of that—rent certainty, additional HRA borrowing and billions for new affordable housing—affirms our commitment as a Government to building social housing. I know that Stroud District Council, like other local authorities and many housing associations to which I have spoken, welcomes these measures.

Matt Western: Does the Minister accept that many authorities are struggling, particularly with the allocation of housing through developers? The viability studies supposedly always prevent such houses being built. As we have recently seen with Persimmon, the lack of viability is purely because the developers do not make enough profit. They are in fact making huge profits, but there are just no teeth available to local authorities.

Alok Sharma: I will address that point, because it was also raised by the hon. Member for Stroud. I agree it is important that developers build the required amount of affordable homes.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On affordability, is there not a huge problem in our planning guidelines at the moment? Affordability is often the criterion we use but, in many of our cities, affordability is not affordable for the vast majority of people. Instead, councils should be encouraged, and be able, to require a percentage of  council-owned and council-run social housing as part of planning considerations, which would be a real game-changer.

Alok Sharma: First, I would say that we have talked about the extra £2 billion, with a proportion to be made available for social rent. Secondly, we just need to get more homes built. The reality is that we have not built enough homes over many decades and successive Governments have not gripped the issue sufficiently. That is what we are now trying to do.
I want to get on to the point about right to buy that was raised by the hon. Member for Stroud. I know he has expressed his concerns about how this is affecting councils’ ability to invest in new housing. The Government remain committed to ensuring that for every home sold, an additional one will be provided nationally. There is a rolling three-year deadline for local authorities to deliver replacement affordable homes, through new build or acquisitions, and so far they have delivered within the sales profile. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 2012 reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme introduced a requirement to replace every additional sale nationally with another property through acquisition or new supply. By September 2014, after the first 30 months of reinvigoration, there had been 14,732 additional sales, and by September 2017, three years later, there had been 14,736 starts and acquisitions. However, I recognise—

David Drew: rose—

Alok Sharma: Let me continue, as I may be able to deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise.
I recognise that there are limits on how local authorities can use the receipts from sales under right to buy. We do, of course, encourage local authorities and housing associations to work together at a local level to provide social housing. A council can bring its right-to-buy receipts to the table and a housing association can supplement that with its own resources to get homes built. The extra HRA borrowing should make a real difference in helping councils to deliver more replacements more quickly, but of course we will keep under review whether there are further flexibilities we can offer.

David Drew: The point I am making is that Stroud District Council took on the onerous task of buying the stock. We used the option that the Government gave us to own that stock, for which we are grateful, yet the Government are still taking money off the assets that we have to sell. That cannot be fair or reasonable.

Alok Sharma: Local authorities have received almost £2 billion as a result of the voluntary right to buy in order to provide additional affordable housing across the country. Some of this money flows back to the Treasury, but that is part of the self-financing settlement and it is to tackle the budget deficit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should encourage Stroud District Council, at the appropriate time, to bid for an increase in its HRA cap.

Wera Hobhouse: As I understand it, in the financial year that has just finished, we lost more than 12,000 homes to right to buy and rebuilt only 5,000 new  council homes, so clearly this system does not work with the like-for-like replacement.

Alok Sharma: I have just set out that this is over a three-year cycle and I have set out the numbers available to me now. However, I would be happy to discuss this with the hon. Lady when we meet to discuss it and other matters.
Let me get back to Stroud District Council, which has a track record of building replacement homes and has worked with affordable housing providers and neighbouring authorities to achieve that. As the hon. Member for Stroud may know, we expect to make a decision early in the new year on the council’s application to designate 32 parishes within the Stroud District Council area as “rural” for the purposes of section 157 of the Housing Act 1985. If they are designated as such, that will enable the council to impose restrictions on the resale of properties that it sells under the statutory right to buy.
I have a few minutes, so I shall address a couple of points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about planning permissions not resulting in homes being built fast enough. As he will know, the Chancellor announced at the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will be conducting a build-out review. Indeed, his work has already started.
As Members will know, we consulted on viability in the local housing needs consultation that closed on 29 November. We will of course consider the feedback on that. We have been clear that we want viability to be considered much earlier in the process—at the plan-making stage—so that local councils and developers can be clear about what is required with respect to affordable housing.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: rose—

Alok Sharma: I think I should move on.
The hon. Member for Stroud talked about regeneration. To be clear, the Government believe that residents’ engagement with and support for a regeneration scheme is crucial for its viability.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown asked what local authorities should do if they have sold housing stock to a housing association. It is up to the housing association to bid through the affordable homes programme for a grant to build new housing. Of course, housing associations can also borrow.
We are taking action on all fronts, providing significant new funding and working with local authorities to deliver, as the Prime Minister has put it, a new generation of council housing. Following the terrible events at Grenfell Tower, an important part of that is our work on the forthcoming Green Paper on social housing, which will be informed by the views of the social housing tenants throughout the country whom I have been meeting over the past few months. I am hugely grateful to them for sharing their experiences. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Stroud and others to ensure that we deliver the safe, secure, affordable homes that people need and absolutely deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Local Government

That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 13 November, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 318294, Noes 231221.

Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England and Wales: Ayes 294, Noes 221.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Government

That the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 13 November, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 318286, Noes 231195.

Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England: Ayes 286, Noes 195.
Question accordingly agreed to.